MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 2: Line 2:


==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Determine a minimum number of glitches in a game to warrant a separate list article===
===Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style===
The passing of this proposal would include the in-game [[mission]]s and equivalencies (i.e. episodes from ''Super Mario Sunshine'', objectives from ''Super Mario Odyssey'', etc.) to the subjects we put quotation marks around in our [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Italicizing titles|Manual of Style]].


I've noticed some strange discrepancies regarding how glitches are handled when a game has only 3 or 4 of them documented here. ''[[Wario Land 4]]'' has a separate article for its 3 glitches ([[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]]), but every other game with 3 glitches simply has those glitches merged with the game's page. Specifically, [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong#Glitches|''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'']], [[Super Mario Strikers#Glitches|''Super Mario Strikers'']], [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)#Glitches|''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch)]], and, most glaringly, [[Wario Land 3#Glitches|''Wario Land 3'']] have sections for glitches rather than separate lists.
In reference material aimed at describing and chronicling creative works, putting quotation marks around certain types of subjects has become a [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html well-established practice]. This is acknowledged in our Manual of Style, in which it states that video games, TV series, and albums should be italicized, whereas individual music titles, named book chapters, and TV episodes should be within quotation marks. I am personally not a fan of adhering to traditions or standards just for the sake of it, but there are strong utilitarian reasons why this has become commonplace. Last year, I relayed what these were in a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Do not surround song titles with quotes|proposal]] that aimed to remove quotation marks from song titles, stating:
<blockquote>The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a ''greater whole'' (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in ''The Color of Water''. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of ''Resident Alien''. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "[[Gusty Garden Galaxy (theme)|Gusty Garden Galaxy]]" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and [[Gusty Garden Galaxy]] is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
</blockquote>
I hope this adequately explains why I think this is a good practice for us as editors, and how this benefits visitors to our site.


More complicated is figuring out how to deal with games with 4 glitches. Of the 6 games with 4 documented glitches:
I would like us to explicitly include [[mission]]s as subjects we should put quotation marks around. This is something I do already on the wiki because I have always perceived them as scenarios within a creative work, much like a TV episode or named chapter in a novel. They often even have unique narrative elements. Consequently, presenting them between quotation marks comes with the same benefit to readers. Proper levels (which I conceptualize as locations within the creative works we cover, not scenarios) have been given a diversity of different names through the franchise's history and many of them sound like they could be referring to scenarios. For folks browsing the wiki or reading an article covering a recurring subject, wouldn't it be nice to have some passive indication that [[Here Come the Hoppos]] is a level, whereas "[[Footrace with Koopa the Quick]]" is a scenario ''within'' a level? I think that'd provide helpful clarity.
*4 of them have glitches merged into the main article: [[Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2#Glitches|''Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2'']], [[Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze#Glitches|''Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze'']], [[Donkey Kong Land#Glitches|''Donkey Kong Land'']], [[Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle#Glitches|''Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle'']]
*2 of them have separate "List of glitches" articles: [[List of Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! glitches|''Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem!'']], [[List of Super Mario Advance glitches|''Super Mario Advance'']]


I put forward this proposal to determine a minimum number of glitches for the creation of "List of glitches" articles. That way, there is consistency between games with the same number of documented glitches. Additionally, if new glitches are documented later that brings the total number over this minimum, a new page can easily be created without the need for a proposal, as the editor can cite this proposal.  
As an example of what this would look like in practice, I recommend the ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' article, where I embraced this fully. I don't include quotation marks around missions in the level table because I feel that looks a little busy and they aren't as helpful there, but I always include them when I mention a mission within a sentence, just like I do with chapters and song titles. The only reason why I am making this proposal is because I have seen the quotation marks removed from mission names on other articles I have worked on, and I would rather we keep them. I think it is a good idea.


;Option 1: The minimum number of glitches should be 3. "List of glitches" pages would be created for ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'', ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch), and ''Wario Land 3'' to match that of ''Wario Land 4''.
For clarification, <u>this proposal does not impact the names of actual ''levels''</u>, which I consider to be locations within the creative works we cover, regardless of how silly their names are in English. It is not commonplace to put quotation marks around the names of locations in creative works, and it would also defeat the intent behind this proposal. What would be the point of including quotation marks around "Big Bob-omb on the Summit" if you are also including them around "Bob-omb Battlefield?" That would just be redundant and clarify nothing to our readers.
;Option 2: The minimum number of glitches should be 4. [[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]] would be deleted and its glitches merged into the main game's article. "List of glitches" pages would be created for ''Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2'', ''Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze'', ''Donkey Kong Land'', and ''Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle''.
;Option 3: The minimum number of glitches should be 5. [[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]], [[List of Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! glitches]], and [[List of Super Mario Advance glitches]] would be deleted, with the glitches merged into each game's main article.
;Do nothing: There should be no concrete minimum, and whether glitches should be split or not should be discussed on a game-by-game basis.  


I could continue with 6, 7, etc., but I feel once this point is reached there is enough to warrant separate "List of glitches" articles, especially since game articles are typically long and images are usually needed to showcase glitches, taking up more space.
I offer two options:


'''Proposer''': {{User|Technetium}}<br>
#'''Add missions (and equivalencies like episodes and objectives) to list of subjects we should put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.'''
'''Deadline''': August 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#'''Don't do that.'''


====Option 1====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Option 2====
====Support: I like this idea! Let's include missions on the Manual of Style.====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Our thought process for this is, admittedly, a tad silly, but hear us out here; if we give episodes of TV shows, like, say, "[[Mama Luigi]]", quotation marks in places like the [[Super Mario World (television series)#Episodes|list of episodes]], to even the infobox of its own article, we can see ''a'' reason to go for this. While we don't feel as strong about this as others, we do feel like it at least makes SOME sense to us to apply this rationale to what is, effectively, the gameplay analogue to an "episode".
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal and per Nintendo101's comments below regarding the relative youth of videogames as a medium. While, as with all conventions, it pays to re-examine them every now and again, these formatting conventions have stood the test of time because they are ''useful''. They quickly and easily signify published creative works and subsections thereof. Standards and conventions for writing about videogames have not had the same time to mature as those for older media like television and literature, but in order for them to mature, someone, somewhere must be willing to engage in a dialogue about those conventions, and decide which conventions used for other media are worth preserving - are useful in some way - to discussing videogames. All of that said, I find this convention useful to discussing these sub-narratives and objectives which occur in larger levels. I do understand the concerns surrounding the murky lines between a "level" and a "mission", but based on the wiki's current definition of a "mission," this applies only to the 3D ''Mario'' platformers, where that distinction is relatively strong. The exception is ''Super Mario Odyssey'', regarding which I think Nintendo101 has already addressed sufficiently in the comments.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} Per proposal. In my opinion, this only serves to bring further clarity to the title of a mission within the level vs. the level itself. With the established notion of a mission being inherent to 3D Mario as a sub-category within levels themselves, I don't see this causing any confusion whatsoever.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal. I do see that there are some tricky gray areas to this mentioned by the opposition, but I do think it's fair to consider ''Mario 64'' style missions the equivalent of something like a chapter or TV episode — they were even called episodes in ''Sunshine'', after all!
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal and per Hooded Pitohui especially. Having an established separator between a location and the "scenario" within said location is not just a nice little feature but can even bring clarity with active or new readers of the Wiki. I see this causing quite the opposite of confusion.


====Option 3====
====Oppose: I think this is a bad idea. Let's not do that.====
#{{User|Technetium}} I am a bit torn between Options 2 and 3, but I prefer this one as I feel 4 glitches can easily fit on a game's page, as seen with the examples above.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I maintain my stance from the aforementioned proposal — these quotation marks are misrepresentative of these subjects' official names, and the insistent use of them makes it impossible to tell the [["Deep, Deep Vibes"|errant times they are official]] from the times in which they are not. This is prioritizing a manual of style over the truth, which is unacceptable no matter how minor.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't particularly mind what the minimum number of glitches is, but I agree that there should be a minimum in order to have some more consistency, and a smaller minimum may cause unnecessary splits of small glitch lists, so I'll go for this option.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Ahemtoday, and I also think the argument for using the quotation marks for missions in particular is especially weak because I don't think you can argue it's a common practice elsewhere like you can with music. It doesn't help to clarify anything for the reader if they don't already know it's a standard.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Putting quotes exclusively around mission names would be saying that a mission has more narrative content than a level, as both are equally discrete segments of video games. (Start at one point, goal at other point, stuff in between, game enters a state with lessened consequences in-between, be that a transition to the next level/mission or a World Map/hubworld.) And sure, missions have more narrative content on average than levels. But that's an ''average'' and is far from absolute, mostly being decided by "are there NPCs in this mission/level who are relevant to the story"? Levels can have those, like [[Bowser Jr. Showdown]], and missions can lack those, like with [[Smart Bombing]]. It would be best for Super Mario Wiki to not pass judgement.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} ignoring the fact that the line between what counts as a "mission" and what doesn't by the given definition is murky (do bogstandard [[Power Moon]] names count, if ''SM64'' stars do? what about ''Brothership'' [[List of Mario & Luigi: Brothership side quests|side quests]]? ''TTYD'' [[Trouble Center|troubles]]? achievements?), i think the way this proposal tries to apply a standard used for episodes in a show and songs in an album to only a particular stripe of objectives within a videogame is drawing a false equivalence. deciding that levels are strictly separate "locations" while missions are "scenarios" also feels like an improper conflation of game-mechanical and narrative terminology (what about levels that share locations with others, like <i>Master of Disguise</i>'s [[Whose Show Is This Anyway?!!|first]] and [[The Purple Wind Stinks Up the Ship!|second]] levels?). this feels like a misapplied idea.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. (I really love glitches, so I'm glad this is being settled.)
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all; it's good for consistency to have a standard for this.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.


====Do nothing====
<s>#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all: it's unneeded, it does not make much sense to put mission names in quotation marks but not level names, it's not always clear what qualifies as a mission or not, and this would not be helpful to most readers because they would not be aware of this convention.</s>


====Comments====
====Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal====
From what I can tell, articles on this wiki are usually split based on size, not the number of headings. It's why [[List of Fortune Street quotes]] is split into [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Dragon Quest characters (A–J)|Dragon Quest characters (A-J]] / [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Dragon Quest characters (K–Z)|K-Z)]] and [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Super Mario characters (A–M)|Super Mario characters (A-M]] / [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Super Mario characters (N–Z)|N-Z)]] and why the number of headings in these articles is inconsistent. I think it'd be weird to split lists of glitches based strictly on the number of sections rather than the amount of text since that could lead to very short articles that only list a few very minor glitches that can be described in just a few sentences. {{User:Dive Rocket Launcher/sig}} 22:50, August 15, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Ahemtoday}} I believe your proposal did not pass because the arguments were not persuasive. There are very few expectations for users and visitors of this site other than that they have baseline writing and reading comprehension skills. I am not privy to anyone, certainly not a systemic amount of people, who have seen quotation marks ''around'' the name of a subject and assume it is literally part ''of'' the name. I do not think it is a reasonable argument. I do not even know of any music tracks in the franchise with quotation marks around them as part of their name outside of the four items from ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' - in a nearly forty year-old franchise with hundreds of music tracks. The inclusion of quotation marks for these four subjects is clearly the exception, not the rule, and a useful writing convention should not be thrown out just for them. It takes very little effort to just share in the body paragraphs of those four articles that the quotation marks are part of their names (if one even thinks it is necessary, which I am still unconvinced is). We are not misinforming readers here.
:Yeah, I'm aware of that. It just feels different here because glitch descriptions tend to be around the same length. If you look at the examples I discussed in the proposal, you'll find there really isn't a noticeable size difference between the pages that have their glitches merged vs separate. Truth be told, I was originally going to just make a talk page proposal to merge [[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]], but the discrepancies with the pages with 4 glitches led to me coming up with this. I'd be happy to hear anyone else's ideas on how to make things more consistent, because the way things are currently is frankly bugging me. --[[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 23:02, August 15, 2024 (EDT)


==New features==
Additionally, bringing up that music track is a non sequitur because this proposal does not impact music: it impacts missions. If you feel like quotation marks around any subject, regardless of medium (i.e. televised episodes, song titles, titled novel chapters, and potentially missions, if this proposal were to be successful) is inherently "lying," as you assert in your previous proposal, it is dependent on the idea that your average reader sees quotation marks and assume they are part of the title unless otherwise specified, which you have not unsubstantiated. I don't think that happens. That is like seeing the title ''Super Mario Galaxy'' on the wiki and feeling misinformed because every letter on the [[:File:SMG Title Screen.png|title screen]] is capitalized. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)
''None at the moment.''
:The point is that the speech marks sometimes are part of the name and putting them around all names regardless of that removes that distinction. It wouldn't be immediately obvious to a reader that they are part of the title of [["Deep, Deep Vibes"]] but are not part of the title of "[[Happy & Sappy]]". Similar cases are "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario Bros.|"Hurry Up!" Ground BGM]]" and "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario 64|"It's-a Me, Mario!"]]", where I think the double quotation marks look bad. A solution I'd be fine with is to only use the quotation marks in running text and not tables, which seems to already be done on many [[List of albums|album pages]] (though I'm still opposed to using quotation marks at all for mission names since I don't think it's an established standard). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:48, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::Why is it more immediately important to relay that quotation marks are part of a subject's title over the fact that it is a song as opposed to something else? — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:57, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::Because the goal of saying the title is simply to say the title, not to also clarify immediately what kind of thing it is. That's what context is for, not titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::Then why do we italicize game titles? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 09:39, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::Because it's an established standard (and one Nintendo sometimes adheres to), unlike putting quotes around mission names. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:26, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::Very few novels put quotation marks around their own chapter titles. Independent reference material on those novels always do. Do you think we would not italicize video game titles if Nintendo themselves did not? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:02, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::What reference material puts quotation marks around video game mission titles that were not present in the game? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:11, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::I would have personally appreciated it if you had engaged with the question I asked, or at least engage with whether you think it is accurate to say an episode in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' is essentially one of its "chapters." That was the point I was trying to make.
::::::::I am hardly familiar with any independent sources that discuss missions at all, let along put quotation marks around their names when they show up in a sentence, and I hope it is apparent from [[Super Mario Galaxy#Notes and references|the articles I contribute to the most]] that I do exercise that diligence. (There may be sources that chronicle RPG titles like ''Final Fantasy'' where certain scenarios or chapters in the games have quotation marks around them, iirc, but platformers are typically not discussed with the same rigor because most of them have weaker narrative elements.) When compared to literature, film, and music, video games are a younger medium that is still not chronicled or discussed with the same care in academic or archival projects, which is where precedents for this type of thing would be set. They are still viewed as products first and creative works second in many circles. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, the people who want granular information on the ''Super Mario'' series are likely to come to the Super Mario Wiki before anywhere else, and I do not see that changing in the near or distant future. We would very much be the ones establishing this precedent. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::I think the reason we italicise game titles is because of it being a standard in other sources, which putting quotes around mission names is not, regardless of the reason for that. I don't see why it should be our job to set this precedent. Following established practice is very different to inventing it. And I don't agree that missions are equivalent to chapters because I feel like missions in Mario games are often more equivalent to levels in other Mario games, which I certainly do not want us to be putting quotes around. Like Salmancer argued in their vote, the idea that missions have more narrative content than levels is not always accurate (and I don't see why narrative content should be a decider anyway in a franchise that is not primarily focused on narrative). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:33, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::I do not want to set it because it is "our job." I want to set it because I think it is a beneficial tool. It is also not some sort of value judgement like Salmancer suggested. It is acknowledging that the Bob-omb Battlefield and "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" are not equivalencies within the game they occur in: the former is a level, whereas the latter is a scenario within the level. They are not the same thing. Bowser Jr. Showdown, regardless of how it was localized in English, is the name of a unique level. A location. It is within a greater region (a world), but that is exactly like World 1-1 or Vanilla Secret 2. When you access "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," you are accessing the same level as "Big Bob-omb on the Summit," so it is not the equivalency to something like Bowser Jr. Showdown and is exactly why I made the disclaimer I did in the proposal about level names. The lack of quotation marks does not mean Bowser Jr. Showdown is devoid of any narrative context, just that it is a level only. If there were different discrete scenarios like missions within Bowser Jr. Showdown that had names, that would be another matter. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:14, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::::I don't see how it being a "scenario" (which is already a pretty loose distinction imo) should mean it gets quotation marks if that isn't a standard. In the same way levels and missions aren't equivalent subjects, nor are levels and worlds, or levels and items, or levels and characters. Deciding that this particular distinction can't just be gleaned from context like all those others can and instead needs us to invent an extra indicator feels arbitrary to me. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:27, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:It is not that readers, necessarily, will '''believe''' that the quotation marks are actually present around things they are not. It is that, if the reader had any desire to see if quotation marks surrounded something, they could not get this information from us except from marginal implicities that are basically by accident. By contrast, whether or not a name is a location or a mission is extremely easy information to obtain on this wiki without quotation marks — readers can simply click on the link and find out at the very top of that subject's article what it is. I've never spoken to a person who's run into the issue of confusing episode and level names, but even if they ''weren't'' equally unsubstantiated, why should we obfuscate information to cater to them when they are five seconds away from solving their problem? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 21:55, January 8, 2025 (EST)
{{@|Hewer}} I think you have misunderstood the proposal. I did not argue this was common practice or had precedent. My argument is that quotation marks often convey the type of subject and that it is part of a greater whole. Missions are narrative scenarios within a larger creative work, just like episodes in a television show, scenes in a film (which also get placed within quotation marks when titled), and named book chapters. I think that is intuitive. They are ontologically all the same thing in different media and — like them — they inherit the same benefits from quotation marks. They passively relay the same info: that this is a scenario within a creative work as opposed to, say, a location within a creative work. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:54, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:I understand you weren't arguing that this had precedent, my point is that that was an argument for the opposition in the music proposal that I don't think can be applied here, thus I think the case for quotes around missions is weaker than that for quotes around music. Quotation marks only help to indicate what type of subject it is if the reader is already aware that that is what they are meant to indicate, which they aren't as likely to be for mission titles due to it not being a common practice (and again, it doesn't match how the games themselves do it, so I think it would probably add more confusion, not reduce it). The quotation marks around "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" don't indicate it being a mission any more than it being a song. I also personally don't think the distinction between levels and missions, especially in Mario games, is that significant. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::The intent is to clarify that "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario in a place, whereas Bob-omb Battlefield is the place. I have found this very helpful in the articles I have contributed to. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)


==Removals==
I argue "death of the author". People will read this as "we're putting quotation marks around missions and not levels because missions are more like television episodes than levels are". This will happen because levels in 2D ''Super Mario'' games and missions in 3D ''Super Mario'' games are more or less equivalent; the concept of "place" vs "event in place" is wibbly-wobbly in video game land unless the option of replaying them with the same save file is cut off, and this proposal is putting one set of "events in places" over the other. I read the entire proposal and came to that exact conclusion. And to the theoretical confusion of "3D platformer level" to "mission", what of "2D platformer world" to "level"? What makes declaring Footrace with Koopa the Quick to be a part of Bob-omb Battlefield but not of the same type as Bob-omb Battlefield any more important than declaring Bowser Jr. Showdown is part of [[Meringue Clouds]] but not of the same type as Meringue Clouds? This has to be done for both kinds of relationships. This, of course, is relevant because Worlds in New Super Mario Bros. games started to include interactive elements that work based on how they do in the levels, and I think this proposal is targeted at prose for such interactive elements in their articles, like explaining where and when things appear. Sure, this makes something like [[Cosmic block]]'s first sentence in it's ''Super Mario Galaxy'' section marginally clearer if someone has already read the Manual of Style, but why shouldn't [[Spine Coaster]]s get this treatment when they appear in [[Thrilling Spine Coaster]] and in [[Rock-Candy Mines]]? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 23:19, January 8, 2025 (EST)
===Remove lists of Poké Ball and stage-exclusive Pokémon on ''Smash Bros.'' game pages and allow each Poké Ball Pokémon only one representative artwork/screenshot===
:I don't think "death of the author" applies here because the distinction of mission vs. level is informed by the game itself, not by what the creators of the game say it should be.
This proposal's a short one because there's not much to say about it. The [[List of Super Smash Bros. series items#Poké Ball Pokémon|Poké Ball Pokémon]] section of the List of ''SSB'' series items page is cluttered enough. They have little to no relation to ''Super Mario'' other than their interactivity with ''Super Mario'' fighters, but that goes for all fighters in general (that's my understanding as to why the list pages exist). A while ago, there was a majority consensus of [[Talk:Pokémon|over 20 users]] who agreed to delete the {{fake link|Pokémon}} page, giving images of Poké Ball Pokémon even less of a purpose to be on the wiki. Poké Ball Pokémon are not nearly as intrinsic to the ''Smash Bros.'' games as moves, stages, items, and, of course, fighters; they are a mechanic part of the Poké Ball item.
:The reason why Bob-omb Battlefield isn't the equivalent of a world is because the first floor in ''Super Mario 64'' is the world, and this is part of how the game is physically organized. You only gain access to another floor if you clear the first Bowser course of the first floor. The only games with missions that don't have worlds for their levels are ''Super Mario Sunshine'' and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. The other three do: ''Super Mario 64'' has its levels broken up into floors; ''Super Mario Galaxy'' has [[dome]]s; and ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' has what are literally called [[World#Super Mario Galaxy 2|World]]s. So if the the equivalency of the [[Terrace (Super Mario Galaxy)|Terrace]] in ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' is [[Acorn Plains]], and the equivalency of [[Good Egg Galaxy]] is [[Acorn Plains Way]], than what is the equivalency of "[[A Snack of Cosmic Proportions]]?" The answer is there is none, because Acorn Plains Way doesn't have any episodes. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:07, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::I should have leaned less on the joke. When I said "death of the author" I meant "your intention not being that missions have more narrative content than levels does not negate my interpretation of this rule in the manual of style existing because missions have {arbitrary quality} that levels do not". ({arbitrary quality} can be replaced with anything, "narrative content" is just my pick for the most obvious given the comparison to television in the proposal.) People who don't edit wikis usually do not read the manual of style, and there has to be a non-zero number of editors who don't read it either. This rule, if implemented and without someone also reading the explanation listed here, says what I interpreted it to say. Super Mario Wiki makes decisions both for contributors and for readers, and this interpetation is a negative for both groups if they do not read the Manual of Style to obtain the intended interpretation. While reading the Manual of Style is an expectation for contributors (and honestly I do not mind if people skip the manual of style and just figure things out from context), that is not expected for readers.
::And to point 2... This policy meant to apply to exactly five video games only functions in a reasonable sense for three of them. That is far too much "sanding off the corner cases because it's convenient" than this wiki should have. (If you subscribe to the reasoning Nintendo displayed once in an [[:File:3D Mario Infograph.jpg|image]] that ''Odyssey'' is actually the sequel to ''Sunshine'' and the ''Galaxy'' games float off with ''3D Land'' and ''3D World'', then the ratios of "makes sense/doesn't make sense" are 2/2 for the Galaxy/3D Whatever group with missions and 1/3 for the wide open sandboxes with missions. That's worse.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 22:18, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::I'm sorry, I don't think I really understand what you are talking about. The criteria for missions is not arbitrary - they are well defined in the games they occur in, which is why we have an [[mission|article for them]]. It is an immaterial scenario within a level. The reason why one would put quotation marks around mission and not something like a [[Spine Coaster]] is because the latter is a material, physical structure. Same with characters, items, objects, enemies, worlds, levels, etc. Mario can touch Bob-omb Battlefield - he cannot touch "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," only experience it. This is frankly a level of clarification I did not really expect. Traditionally, in creative works, regardless of medium of what that work is, named scenarios - the subset experiences within which the events of the creative work occur - are what you put quotation marks around in reference material about that work. That's it. That's very common practice, and it is a helpful tool for the reasons I outline above. To me, that is exactly what missions are in the 3D ''Mario'' games - named scenarios. The missions in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' are even referred to as episodes - which is what you would quotation marks around in reference material about television series. It is completely inline with what one would do for a novel with named chapters, an album, a film with named scenes, or even the named paragraphs of a delivered speech. The point isn't that people at large would know the quotation marks mean it is a mission - it is that they would understand "oh, there is something discretely different between 'Footrace with Koopa the Quick' and Bob-omb Battlefield" just by passively reading the text. Because if they were equivalencies, they would not be formatted differently in the reference material. That remains the case. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:09, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::::My point was to say in the same way Cosmic Block would be clarified by going, "Cosmic blocks first appear in 'Pull Star Path' of Space Junk Galaxy", Spine Coaster merits equal clarification by going, "Spine Coasters appear in 'Thrilling Spine Coaster' of Rock-Candy Mines", not that we should be putting quotes around Spine Coaster. (I'm really bad at wording these things).
::::Regardless, I still flatly think this is wrong. Yes, missions are immaterial, levels are material... but there's a catch to "missions are immaterial" that I should have remembered a few indents earlier. The specific mission selected from a menu changes the map that a level uses. And the exact state of the map of the level when a mission is selected is treated on this wiki as part of the mission: according to [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_in_the_Honeyhive_Kingdom&diff=4484131&oldid=4482705 this edit summary] and [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_on_the_Roof&diff=4470879&oldid=4448218 this edit summary] the enemy list for a mission should only account for enemies in the version of the level loaded when that mission is selected and are able to be encountered while collecting the mission's Power Star, not just every enemy that can be encountered while still collecting the mission's Power Star. Missions on this wiki consist of both an immaterial scenario and the very material version of the level loaded when selecting the mission. Footrace with Koopa the Quick means both the scenario where you can race Koopa the Quick to get a Power Star ''and'' the version of Bob-Omb Battlefield that contains Koopa the Quick, a [[Bob-omb Buddy]] to unlock the [[cannon]]s, an extra [[metal ball|iron ball]], and neither [[King Bob-omb|Big Bob-omb]] nor a [[Koopa Shell]]. (This explanation on {{iw|Ukikipedia|Bob-omb Battlefield}} brought to you from Ukikipedia!) This ties back into my earlier ''Odyssey'' joke: this concept doesn't necessarily apply there because in removing the ability to replay missions and having state changes for finishing final objectives, things more logically come together as "the world is changing because I'm moving through the story" and not as "the world is in a specific state because I picked this Star from the menu". Which is why I'm swearing up and down that I knew this and somehow forgot to mention it. (I should also note I'm not overthinking game mechanics, Big Bob-omb actively acknowledges this is how things work because he says he shows up again if the player selects Big Bob-omb on the Summit's Star from the menu.) With this the layout of the level being a component of a mission, a mission looks a lot like a level of a 2D ''Super Mario'' game.
::::For completion's sake, I should also mention that [[Dire, Dire Docks]] throws a spanner in my case. The state of Bowser's Sub is based on completion of [[Bowser in the Fire Sea]] and not on the selection of any mission. Which would mean that maps aren't entirely dependent on mission selection, only extremely close to completely dependent on mission selection. Ukikipedia doesn't count Bowser's Sub's state as a course version, if that matters. ([[Tick Tock Clock]] presumably doesn't mess with this: the clock speeds presumably are just changing the behavior of all the platforms and not four versions of Tick Tock Clock.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 09:14, January 11, 2025 (EST)
{{@|EvieMaybe}}, I restricted this proposal to what I am familiar with, which are the 3D ''Super Mario'' platformers. I do not have the knowledge or expertise to extend this proposal to ''Wario: Master of Disguise'' or ''Mario & Luigi: Brothership''. I am only interested in ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario Sunshine'', ''Super Mario Galaxy'', ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'', and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. I do not offhand think isolated Power Moons should be impacted by this proposal. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:13, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:By the nature of being a writing guideline, this proposal ''inherently'' extends to those games, and every other game within this wiki's scope. I've taken a hardline stance against this convention, but I would rather it be applied consistently everywhere than be inconsistently enforced and/or explicitly arbitrarily limited in scope. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:47, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::What? No. It would apply only to the subjects on the [[mission]] page, but they do not have a single name. Please do not say things that are not true or assume bad faith. It is discourteous to your fellow user. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:36, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::Apologies. I'd overlooked that "mission" was a strictly defined term on this wiki in that way, and I didn't mean to speak in a way that was assuming bad faith. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:26, January 9, 2025 (EST)


Now I already think that for a wiki on ''Super Mario'', a table listing Poké Ball Pokémon and giving an image of each one is enough of a stretch as is, but further discussion on that is for a possible future proposal. For this proposal, if it passes, only '''one''' artwork (or screenshot, if there is no artwork) per each Poké Ball Pokémon will be used, of their latest or only appearance in ''Smash Bros.'' only, and '''all other screenshots and artwork''' of Poké Ball Pokémon '''will be deleted'''. Several of them have been in [[Special:UnusedFiles]] for months. In the case that a Pokémon has both a screenshot and artwork, prioritize the artwork but delete the screenshot, consistent with how infoboxes are used. The playable fighters representing ''Pokémon'' and Rayquaza (a boss in ''Brawl'') will not be affected by this proposal, nor will any of the trophy images of Poké Ball Pokémon, which would be better subject to a different proposal.
On a second thought, I don't think that this proposal would cause actual harm, so I'm removing my vote. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 03:32, January 11, 2025 (EST)


'''Edit:''' Passing this proposal will also remove any standalone Poké Ball Pokémon lists on the ''Smash Bros.'' game pages and list the Pokémon (though not their functions) within the Poké Ball description under the Items heading. To be consistent, this will also remove the Saffron City cameos on the ''Super Smash Bros.'' article, since they're more or less the same by virtue of Poke Ball Pokemon, except they spawn from the stage environment.
==New features==
===Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page===
This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more ''Super Mario'' games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for [[Mario]], [[Bowser]], and many other recurring subjects.


'''Second edit:''' A separate option ("Remove only Poké Ball Pokémon lists") has been added for those who want only the Poké Ball Pokémon list removed (at least from this proposal). This is for others who think that stage hazards should stay put on the game pages but not Poke Ball Pokemon, or for those who want the status of ''Pokémon'' and other non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards to be for consideration in a future proposal altogether. Even in this case, an individual image for stage hazard Pokémon would be kept, even if they later became Poké Ball Pokémon, but on the game pages only, NOT on the [[List of Super Smash Bros. series items]] page for the reason that they are/were not Poké Ball Pokémon under this context.
Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.


'''Third edit:''' Adding a separate voting option for keeping any Poké Ball Pokémon artworks existing on gallery pages but not screenshots. Modified the first two headings to reiterate from the proposal title that these options are for keeping only one image per Poké Ball Pokémon (precisely those in [[List of Super Smash Bros. series items#Poké Ball Pokémon]]) and deleting any others.
For example, let's say for [[Luigi]] in his appearance in ''[[Mario Sports Superstars]]'', there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
:''For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see [[List of Luigi profiles and statistics#Mario Sports Superstars|here]].''
'''Deadline''': August 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Remove both Poké Ball and stage Pokémon lists as well as any additional images====
The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
#{{User|Mushzoom}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} A little Pokemon coverage could still be contained in the Smash Bros item list because you can interact with them while playing as a Mario character, but all the tiny Saffron City cameos and specific mechanics of these assist Pokemon on the parent Super Smash Bros. game pages are excessive, and so are the dozens of images related to these things. Nuke 'em. Last I checked, this site is called "mariowiki.com".
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} We've got Smash Wiki and Bulbapedia to cover the Pokémon in Super Smash Bros. Also, RPG has made better points than Doc in the comments.
#{{User|Yook Bab-imba}} Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} The simple fact is that this coverage violates the policy of [[MarioWiki:Once and only once|once and only once]] when considering the broader scope of the [[MarioWiki:Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance]] (NIWA). This information is already covered on two other wikis: On Bulbapedia, the ''[[bulbapedia:Super Smash Bros.|Super Smash Bros.]]'' game article focuses exclusively on the game's Pokémon content, including a detailed table of Poké Ball Pokémon and a list of ''Pokémon'' franchise stages, providing easy access to Pokémon that act as stage hazards; this is also the case for future games in the series. Meanwhile, the [[smashwiki:Poké Ball|Poké Ball]] article on SmashWiki lists every single Poké Ball Pokémon in one article and provides quick links to specific Pokémon articles, where details of the Pokémon in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games and in-game screenshots can be seen. Since all three wikis exist under the NIWA umbrella, the Mario Wiki needs nothing more than to briefly summarize the Poké Ball item and the list of Pokémon, use the <nowiki>{{main-wiki}}</nowiki> template for the two articles mentioned above, and link to Bulbapedia articles when appropriate. These tables will remain preserved for public access by the "History" tab on each article, since this constitutes an edit to an article rather than the entire page being deleted, and even if that was the case, the Wayback Machine and other web archive resources exist for a reason. This is the Super Mario Wiki, and this content has nothing to do with the ''Super Mario'' franchise.
#{{User|Axii}} Per proposal.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per ThePowerPlayer. While I partially sympathize with Doc's counterpoint regarding how the non-''Mario'' Assist Trophies and non-''Mario''-or-''Pokémon'' stage hazards will end up with more coverage if this passes, I do indeed believe that can be taken care of in a later proposal.


====Remove only Poké Ball Pokémon lists and additional images====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Secondary.
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Remove both lists and screenshots but not additional Poké Ball Pokémon artworks from gallery pages====
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Third.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} This is a good idea, and all it does is make it easier for readers to find information that's otherwise scattered across various pages. It's a centralizing effort that I think could be fairly helpful.


====Remove nothing====
====Oppose====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - No reason for this. Note how I made [[Super Smash Bros.#Poké Ball Pokémon|the Pokemon table]] for the ''[[Super Smash Bros.]]'' (N64) page; there should be representation of each aspect for each "game" page, even aspects that link to another site - and the only way to so that in the way you're wanting would be to have images from other games in the series, which is an absolute no. <br>'''EDIT''': With the addition to the proposal's goals, this is now aiming to prioritize [[List of Assist Trophy characters#Gray Fox|Gray Fox]] and [[Whispy Woods]] over Pokemon that have the same role (assist summon and stage hazard, respectively, such as Chansey and Venusaur on both counts) just because the latter are from Pokemon. This is completely counterintuitive and seems to have no basis other than a personal disdain for Pokemon images. ''Why do the former two (especially the foremost, who's not even a Nintendo character and has not appeared in any media with Mario other than Smash) get prioritized?'' Even if you "plan to take care of that in a later proposal," that still leaves things inconsistent until the hypothetical scenario of that happening and passing.<br>'''SECOND EDIT''': As Nintendo101 points out, Smashwiki doesn't do game galleries, nor do they want to. As such, ours is the only one that exists, and there's no reason to get rid of its contents because "Smashwiki should" when they don't ''want'' to. Meanwhile, from what I recall, Bulbapedia doesn't do gallery pages ''at all'', they just have image categories. Plus, this proposal ignores the presence of all the Trophy, Sticker, and Spirit images, the latter two of which get full textual/numerical coverage as well - as such, a to-the-letter enactment of this proposal could snowball ''badly''.
#{{User|Mario}} Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Doc, this doesn't feel like a logical limitation of scope to stay Mario-focused so much as a random and arbitrary restriction that hinders completeness. It also seems strange to me to single out Pokémon out of everything in Smash as the one thing not Mario-relevant enough to warrant this treatment - it doesn't make sense to do this for the Poké Ball summons but not the non-Mario Assist Trophies, or for the Pokémon stage hazards but not the other non-Mario stage hazards.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I worry this would make history sections messy and repetitive when the focus should be on the written text.
#{{User|Metalex123}} Per Doc
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per Lefty and N101.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Went through a good chunk of the comments to get good information and perspectives on each argument--per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Doc
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Making this vote motivated by Doc's proposed proposal in the comments.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} The Pokemon on the SSB64 page can just be mentioned under the Poké Ball description of the Items section. The description already says "a random Pokémon." That's vague. Which ones? But if mentioning the Pokémon in that description, then it will show which of them there are without making a separate subsection of something that doesn't directly invoke ''Super Mario'', unlike items, moves, fighters, and stages, which all have at least one thing related to ''Super Mario'' in them. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:58, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Hewer}} I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)
:...in saying that, you openly admit you ''want'' it to be more vague. The non-Pokeball Pokemon are instead listed in the stage element sections, anyway. When it comes to this sort of section, we should not pick-and-choose what is and is not "relevant" to the ''Mario'' games, as there are too many edge cases; like the Bumpers, for instance, which despite being ''Smash''-based appear as a permanent obstacle in the primary ''Mario'' stage. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:59, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
 
::It's not vague. It would be summarizing Pokemon under the "Poke Ball" heading if saying "these are the Pokemon, all of them behave differently" and then either link to the list page on this wiki for more info ([[MarioWiki:Once and only once]]) or to SmashWiki. As for the Pokemon that are stage features, they could be mentioned under the respective stage descriptions. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:03, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
If I understood this correctly, would this proposal add a disclaimer to every sigle game in a character's History section if the character has a corresponding profile and/or statistics section for that game? That's basically 20+ disclaimers on almost every game in Luigi's History page, is that correct? {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 09:41, January 1, 2025 (EST)
:::How would bloating a single item's section in the items table be preferable to just having a separate table? This covers everything equally without requiring extra pages or understating the importance of the individual subjects - having them as that page is is a great compromise. Attempting to remove it is suddenly just deciding some random aspect shouldn't even be alluded to properly, which is not how coverage works. The "once and only once" argument is irrelevant because that's like saying that the Fire Flower item section on that table shouldn't have a description because there's already a Fire Flower page, and the article you refer to mixes them with no regard for specific game - honestly, those list pages should be phased out in favor of having the information on the individual game pages with interwiki links, like the SSB page currently is. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:06, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:I don't really see the problem if it's helpful, relevant links that aren't very intrusive anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)
::::As for Bumpers, those are items, which I said is more integral to the Smash Bros. series than Poke Ball Pokemon. It's not bloating if it's listing the names of the Pokemon in the Poke Ball section only and giving a one sentence or mention that each of them function differently. Why was the Pokemon page deleted through unanimous consent? Because it lacked enough relevance to ''Super Mario''. These are components of an item that appear in a non-''Super Mario'' crossover page. This is limiting Poke Ball Pokemon info to just the list page which, as stated in the proposal, could be considered a stretch itself (but subject to different proposal or community discussion). What's an "edge case" that involves Poke Ball Pokemon and the ''Super Mario'' franchise? The argument doesn't apply to [[Fire Flower]] for the obvious reason that those are in the ''Super Mario'' franchise itself. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:13, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::As I said, limiting to the list page is the opposite of what should be done, they should be limited to the game articles as SSB's currently is. That is a much better idea, and that is my final word on that discussion. And the Fire Flower thing ''does'' matter in regards to you bringing up "once and only once." The "edge case" thing more has to do with arbitrarily deciding something doesn't need image coverage on a game article, obviously. And yes, putting a ''13-item'' list ''within'' a single cell of a table when no other cell of its column has one is ''absolutely'' bloating it - to say nothing of the later games that have even ''more''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:15, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::To me, the definition of "arbitrary" is someone deciding something based on feeling rather than elaborate consideration. Some of the guest coverage games like ''Nintendo Land'' don't list everything and just give an overview of the other minigames because those are prominent features of the game. If ''Super Smash Bros.'' were not named as such to anglophones (secondary, whilst the Japanese name is primary, being a game developed by HAL and Nintendo), the treatment of ''Smash Bros.'' coverage would almost certainly be on similar level to ''Nintendo Land'' or the recently released ''Nintendo World Championships'' game for Switch. One could make the argument that adding Pokemon descriptions within the Poke Ball is bloat, then that's something to consider, but there's no harm in listing the different Pokemon in it so then it's there in one place. It's not that hard to go to SmashWiki to read more about the Pokemon functions, just like for general Smash Bros. concepts and mechanics like special moves. Many things in Smash Bros. don't have pages here for the reason that Smash Bros. is not officially considered a component of the ''Super Mario'' franchise, and my proposal on deleting {{fake link|Trophy Tussle}} passed some months ago because it's not relevant enough, just like the Pokemon page isn't, and similar could be said for Poke Ball Pokemon. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:36, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::The main difference here is ''Nintendo Land'' is a collection of disconnected minigames, while ''Smash'' mixes everything together cohesively; it's ''much'' harder to pick it apart for only certain aspects, ''especially'' when we already cover four of the franchises included (''Super Mario'', ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', and ''Wario'') plus some of what they list as "miscellaneous" games (''Famicom Grand Prix'', ''Wrecking Crew''). Either way, the point I am making is the ''game page'' should have full coverage as to its contents regardless of what we have on-wiki pages for, because that's leaving holes - which as I already stated, are far more egregious than what ''Nintendo Land'' has due to the differences in cohesion. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:42, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::Why does WiKirby focus on only the ''Kirby'' aspects? Why does Zelda Wiki focus on only the ''Zelda'' aspects? Why does Bulbapedia focus only on the ''Pokemon'' aspects? One could ask the same about this wiki and aspects of ''Super Mario'', for which there's already added lenience from the list pages and additional sections. ''Smash'' could not be a pun on ''Super Mario Bros.'' and still mix everything together, and the argument would still hold up that it's just as relevant to ''Super Mario'' as it is to the other franchises represented, but may incline further consideration of what stays and what goes. Picking apart the Poke Ball Pokemon section will not do a disservice to the wiki's already comprehensive and extended lenience towards coverage on these games at all. Limiting the items and stages would arguably provide less context, but this is an entire grouping of something that does not invoke ''Super Mario'' in any form. That's why I made a proposal about this. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:51, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::What other wikis do does not affect us. Either way, the current SSB page is easily something they could also do if they so felt to. But no other wiki has to juggle four franchises included in this crossover - at that point, just having it all is more efficient. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:57, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::Four franchises? They're representations of games that other ''Super Mario'' characters are protagonists of. They're ''Super Mario'' characters. A definition of four franchises would be ''Super Mario'', ''Kirby'', ''Star Fox'', and ''The Legend of Zelda'', to give an example. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:59, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::[[Super Mario (franchise)|We treat]] [[Donkey Kong (franchise)|them as]] [[Yoshi (franchise)|separate]] [[Wario (franchise)|franchises]], and so does ''Smash''; they have different icons in each game, with the Mushroom, the DK, the Egg, and the W, and different sections for trophies/stickers/music tracks/etc. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:02, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::If they truly were separate franchises, why does it all need to be covered in one place, on this wiki? Shouldn't they have their own wikis then, like other Nintendo franchises? See, it doesn't work. They are part of the ''Super Mario'' branding. In any case, this is distracting from the fact that the proposal is about the relevance of Pokemon and the Poke Ball items. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:07, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::It's demonstrating that you're rather out-of-touch with how this works both on an official and wiki basis, and I mean that as gently as possible. We actually used to have a DKwiki as an affiliate, they ended up merging here. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:13, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The first sentence is an {{iw|wikipedia|ad hominem}} and not about differing opinions on coverage on Poke Ball Pokemon. To reiterate my point, it probably merged because it didn't work separately when the wiki here covers the games in full, but that's besides the point. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:18, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The point is ''Smash'' is very cohesive with how it mixes elements, so including full coverage on the game page when ''Mario'' and related already have a disproportionately large influence on it compared to ''most'' (not all, mind you) other things included in it in a wide variety of roles makes more sense than picking-and-choosing. The prior sentence was more a warning that your arguments aren't quite as infallible as you think they are. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:27, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Yes, but I've yet to see one reason how keeping the information benefits the ''Super Mario'' franchise directly over covering an entire page about an existing crossover game. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:32, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Efficiency. This is a multi-layered bit of coverage here, and starting to remove stuff from that page is a slippery slope that could lead to outright crippling the page (and become inconsistent with characters and items that have crossed over otherwise, if and when it gets to that point). I'd rather avoid that issue entirely - and image galleries should have full coverage anyway just on principle of their existence. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:38, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::It won't necessarily get to that point if the community does not want it to. The definition of "efficiency" here is referring to the wiki page rather than connections to ''Super Mario''. The image galleries already have excessive amounts of non-''Super Mario'' images, something that could become a focus of a different proposal. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:42, August 21, 2024 (EDT)


To illustrate what I mean by "bloat," here's the SSB item table with the proposed changes enacted (keeping the surrounding items for comparison):
@Mario: I don't think the gallery comparison works. Galleries aren't split up into subsections for individual games in the same way as profiles and statistics pages, so it can't really be done the same way. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:16, January 3, 2025 (EST)
{|class="wikitable sortable"style="width:100%"
!width=12%|Image
!width=12%|Name
!width=12%|Series
!width=64%|Description
|-
|[[File:SSBbumper.jpg|75px]]
|[[smashwiki:Bumper|Bumper]]
|''Super Smash Bros.'' series
|When thrown, this item remains in the same spot. If any character, including the user, touches it, they take damage, and are pushed in a single direction.
|-
|[[File:SSBfan.jpg|75px]]
|[[smashwiki:Fan|Fan]]
|''Super Smash Bros.'' series
|Because it is light, this item is good for quick attacks. But it doesn't do much damage and can't be thrown very far.
|-
|[[File:Pokeball.gif|75px]]
|[[smashwiki:Poké Ball|Poké Ball]]
|''Pokémon'' series
|When thrown, the Poké Ball opens up, and a Pokémon pops out. The Pokémon that appears is random; it performs its special skill and leaves. The Pokémon that can appear are:
*Beedrill
*Blastoise
*Chansey
*Charizard
*Clefairy
*Goldeen
*Hitmonlee
*Koffing
*Meowth
*Mew
*Onix
*Snorlax
*Starmie
|-
|[[File:SSBstarrod.jpg|75x75px]]
|[[smashwiki:Star Rod|Star Rod]]
|''Kirby'' series
|When the Star Rod is used, stars come flying out of it, hitting other characters. If used with smash, a large star flies out. The Star Rod has only a limited amount of large stars it can shoot.
|
|}
See how the vertical space for that one specific row is severely extended compared to the ones around it by making that a list within the table? Later games would have even more, and THEN starting with ''Brawl'', there's the Assist Trophies as well, and the only way to be consistent with those identically-acting items would be to have ones for that too. And then there's the Master Balls, which would need to have a redundant list for the subset that they're able to spawn.  [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:20, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I never said I wanted it as a bullet list (perhaps unless {{tem|columns}} is used). Separating by comma would be more efficient. Assist Trophies are items with franchise variety (also subject to separate discussion), unlike Poke Ball Pokemon, only concerning one franchise, are COMPONENTS of an item. It's not redundant if a Master Ball can list that it functions like a Poke Ball but gives priority to legendary Pokemon.
:{{@|Koopa con Carne}} Thank you for input. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 13:24, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::Then it's not a well-formatted (or general wiki-formatted) list because it's harder to tell where the separation between items is; that is the precise reason we have bulleted lists rather than comma'd lists in the first place. Also, only keeping the Assist Trophy tables just because some of them are ''Mario''-based isn't the solution either, because that's saying that Gray Fox or Jeff Andonuts in ''Brawl'' deserve more coverage than Charizard in ''Melee''. And that seems rather arbitrary to me - again to say nothing of non-''Mario'' Assist Trophies that have otherwise crossed over with Mario, like Shadow or Mr. Resetti or Dr. Wily. Also on the subject of Master Ball, we would still need to make clear ''which'' counted as "legendary" or otherwise we're leaving people to look through each Bulbapedia link themselves one-at-a-time. Which shouldn't be needed. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:28, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::First, I meant like this (or comma-separated):
{{columns|count=2|
*Beedrill
*Blastoise
*Chansey
*Charizard
*Clefairy
*Goldeen
*Hitmonlee
*Koffing
*Meowth
*Mew
*Onix
*Snorlax
*Starmie}}


:::Except that's not as arbitrary based on the fact that Assist Trophies have ''Super Mario'' representation mixed in, unlike Poke Ball Pokemon, which have none at all. All relevance to ''Super Mario'' (even if considering it's a stretch) is saying "A ''Super Mario'' fighter can use this item and cause one of these Pokemon to appear from it." That's sufficient enough; anything else is bloat that can be found elsewhere in more detail in any case. The Charizard argument not hold up because he's a playable fighter in later Super Smash Bros. games, overshadowing his status as just a Poke Ball Pokemon, while Assist Trophies (again, subject to separate discussion) are part of a set that happens to have a few ''Super Mario'' characters within. Should the lists be simplified, his fighter profile can be linked to on the ''Super Smash Bros. Melee''. And if the List of SSB items page is linked to, that may not necessarily be the case. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 13:38, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
How much are you envisioning this is going to be used? Is it just going to be for linking to character stats or is it for any game that has a section on the profiles and statistics page? If it's just stats, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed (that information used to be in history sections anyway before profiles and statistics sections were created and later split off from their pages), but I don't think [[List_of_Mario_profiles_and_statistics#Super_Mario_Galaxy_2|something like this]] warrants a template directing readers off the page. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 13:34, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::You're missing the point. Assist Trophies that have no other relevance to ''Mario'' should not have any more priority than any of the Pokémon just because some of the ''other'' Assist Trophies are ''Mario''-based, because functionally, they're the same item-by-function, just with a different pool of summons. Doing so is, indeed, quite arbitrary. (Also, on my screen at least, that columns thing manages to be even more bloated by bloating in ''two'' dimensions rather than just one.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:41, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:When I voted this, I was envisioning just stats pages with significant information such as stats or other notable traits a character might have inherent to a specific game. If it's a link for EVERY category, I would honestly swap to oppose. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 18:31, January 18, 2025 (EST)
::::Basically, the game pages should not be ''Mario''-focused, they should be game-focused. For example, Jigglypuff does not need a ''page'' on the Super Mario Wiki, but the ''Super Smash Bros.'' page ''does'' need a section for Jigglypuff in the character list. This goes for every other element of the game too (including the Ball'mons and Assist Trophies in later ones), regardless of where they link, whether on-site or off-site. Outright not listing them isn't "only covering relevant things," it's hiding the fact they are there in the first place, which is a disservice in every respect. We should say what the game has, ''not'' limit it to what originated in a ''Mario''-allied game, because that's not the extent of what the game contains. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:57, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:This is a good point, I also support only doing this for stats. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 21:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)
:::::It's a wiki on ''Super Mario''. It can balance both game-focused and ''Super Mario'' focused, which is a lot more thoughtful consideration than just "I don't know what stays what goes, let's cover it all." In that case we may as well merge SmashWiki into this wiki, something that I'm sure nobody wants. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:03, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::Except that's not even remotely what I'm saying to do. I'm saying to include links off-site and just have listings, images, and descriptions for everything, not have pages for everything (and ''definitely'' not Smashwiki's overly-technical "this character's standard punch got buffed 3 points of damage since the last game, but their walking speed was nerfed by 2 points" thing that overruns that site). Just because an "affiliated" wiki covers something does not mean we are not ''allowed'' to cover it as well, that would be silly. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:07, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Your second point basically shows that you take issue with SmashWiki, being why you want a lot of ''Smash Bros.'' content to stay here. Didn't you vote to want Smash Bros. content to have their own pages in earlier Smash Bros. proposals? So if I had to guess, this is trying to haphazardly justify the inclusion of something that is not ''Super Mario'' while at the same defend the content not having individual pages based on outcomes of earlier proposals that you presumably opposed? It's inconsistent, so the entire argument is built on "keep everything because it's arbitrary to decide what isn't ''Super Mario''" when it's clear as day that Poke Ball Pokemon are not ''Super Mario''. And of course that's silly, since both us and them both cover the ''Super Mario'' aspects of ''Smash Bros.'' because of the overlap. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:13, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::I see now you are doing the {{wp|ad hominem}} now, but either way I am allowed to think Smashwiki does things poorly, but that is not the main reason I want the game pages to cover what they do - I have already explained why I want them to. And yes, ''7 years ago'' I did vote to keep full coverage, but I'm past that now. You have no reason to bring that up now; I might as well bring up how you, less than a year ago, [https://www.mariowiki.com/Virtual_Boy?action=history attempted to forcibly remove content from console pages because it didn't directly relate to Mario], despite no one else agreeing with you to do that. I have already stated that ''currently'', I don't think everything should have a page, but its existence should be ''acknowledged'' - and yes, with a visual representation. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:20, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::And I have explained why I think it's redundant to have the Poke Ball Pokemon lists, countless times. I thought I responded directly to the points you were making? I assumed you took issue with SmashWiki being the reason for your defense, to which you responded that it isn't. The Virtual Boy example probably shows why proposals exist, so that such things are discussed before the big changes are enacted. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:26, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::In general, I am very anti-deletion because I want to keep history intact (and if possible, curated). That's why I prefer pages being turned into redirects rather than deleted outright. Turning images into redlinks on page history is directly counter to that, particularly when they aren't replaced with new ones. I find such practices destructive. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:33, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::Well, removals have happened before. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:52, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::They have. And from my perspective, if it even had a reason to be somewhere, it should be curated in some manner - this obviously doesn't count things like what's listed on the "non-Mario content" section of BJaoDN, because most of that is nonsense that doesn't even have a tenuous connection, but there is a connection here. That's hardly a novel perspective either, given that "Flashpoint" thing that was made for curating Adobe Flash-based games. While I try to keep good faith, my gut feeling on that sort of permanent, unviewable removal equates it to wanton destruction. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:00, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::If the info is unique and can't be found elsewhere, that's one thing, but no real loss is done if it's a duplication of something that can be read elsewhere. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:03, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::That's just it; it's not a "duplicate" because our coverage styles are just totally different because we are a very different community, and it's wrong to put upon another wiki like that. I guess the main reason ''Mario'' covering ''Smash'' is more valid than the other series included is that ''Mario'' is already very much multi-genre. ''Pokemon'', ''Kirby'', ''Zelda'', et al. usually keep to their core genre with very rare outliers (like an occasional pinball game or something), so their wikis tend to not have systems in place to cover that sort of thing. Of the franchises that have been represented in every ''Smash'' game since the first one, ''Mario'' has always had the most representation due to also covering those other franchises as mentioned before; in the first game, there are four ''Mario''-based fighters (Mario, Yoshi, DK, Luigi), five stages (Peach's Castle, Yoshi's Island, Congo Jungle, Mushroom Kingdom, and Meta Crystal), numerous stage gimmicks and cameos for each of those (Lakitu, Fly Guy, Goonie, Super Happy Tree, Necky, Barrel Cannon, Piranha Plant, Buzzy Beetle, Koopa Troopa, POW Block, Brick Block, and more), six usable items (Fire Flower, Star, both Shells, Hammer, Bob-omb), and one of Master Hand's attacks (Bullet Bill). ''Zelda'' gets one fighter, one stage, and one item, ''Kirby'' gets one fighter, one stage, three stage elements, and two items, ''Pokemon'' gets two fighters, one stage, several stage elements, and one item with all the appearances it spawns, ''Metroid'' gets one fighter, one stage, and one stage cameo, ''Star Fox'' gets one fighter, one stage, and a few stage elements, ''Earthbound'' gets one character and ambiguously one item depending on how you treat the Home Run Bat, and ''F-Zero'' gets a single fighter. Of these, the only one that ''approaches'' the ''Mario'' representation in amount is ''Pokemon'', and it's mostly focused on the very subject of this proposal. That is why ''Mario'' will inherently get more coverage on this, and why by that point it makes the most sense to include the rest on the game page. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:21, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::If we're going by the fact that it's not a duplication from what can be found elsewhere, it should probably present itself differently, especially by virtue of ''Super Mario''. ''Yoshi'', ''Wario'', and ''Donkey Kong'' are not real franchises, and even if they are called franchises, they're more of collective terms referring to their starring roles in ''Super Mario'' games, regardless of distinct symbols or not (after all, ''Wrecking Crew'', starring Mario, has distinct symbol in later ''Smash Bros.'' games). And by the terms of majority representation, again, I'd expect it to apply to groupings that have at least something to do with ''Super Mario''. "Might as well cover it all" has no bearing on the fact that one grouping in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games does not have any ''Super Mario'' elements. Even groupings with ''Super Mario'' elements have been trimmed off of game pages, like how Trophy Tussle was deleted, the non-''Super Mario'' Challenges, and the trophy lists, the latter not being listed on the game pages at all. On a separate, unrelated argument, I could deem trophies, something original to ''Smash'', as being more intrinsic than the Poke Ball Pokemon. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:31, August 22, 2024 (EDT)  
::::::::::::::::In each of those cases the images were still kept, though, as they should be. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:38, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Game & Watch images were deleted before for lack of relevance to ''Super Mario'', I think, in response to the outcome of a proposal restricting coverage to only ''Game & Watch Gallery'' games (with Modern remakes) and ''Super Mario''-themed variations (such as ''Ball'' in SMB Game & Watch). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:42, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Those aren't Smash Trophies or Trophy Tussle, which is what was being referred to. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:47, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Also, yes, those are franchises, Nintendo markets them as such - the very definition of a franchise. May I remind you the original game wasn't ''Mario'', it was ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:32, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::Then from that perspective, should we start a proposal to rename this wiki to "Donkey Kong Wiki", then? I thought you told me they merged into this wiki. Something isn't adding up if we're calling them separate franchises but not covering them on separate wikis. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:49, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::Why in the world would being a separately marketed franchise ''automatically require'' a different wiki, and vice-versa? That logic doesn't add up. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:53, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::::For the reason why different Nintendo franchises have their own wikis. For the reason why we have Bulbapedia for Pokemon information and not the Super Mario Wiki for Pokemon information. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:57, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::That is a very one-way approach to how this works. Nintendo doesn't have so many franchises that constantly intermingle like these ones do, but if you look at other ones, you see more of that. For instance, the ''Street Fighter'' wiki covers ''Final Fight'' just fine, because there's such significant overlap. It's not about matching the divisions, it's about doing what is the most efficient for that specific case, which is ''the entire thing I have been arguing in favor of this entire discussion''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:04, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::::::The "intermingling" in this case refers to the fact that these are all ''Super Mario'' characters, unlike Link and Isabelle, even though they appear in ''Mario Kart 8''. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:27, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I'd say it's moreso the frequency of said intermingling and that in most cases they seem to inhabit the same world; ''Zelda'' and ''Animal Crossing'' only get occasional appearances. Anyway, fun fact: the wiki in the ancient days used to have a page listing everything from the ''Banjo-Kazooie'' games and ''Conker'' games because said characters made their first by-release-date appearance in ''Diddy Kong Racing''. That deletion was justified (though I'll admit its presence was the only reason I found ''Banjo-Kazooie'' again when I did after I briefly played it at a cousin's house when I was a toddler). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:52, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::That's pretty embarrassing that they covered that at one point, especially when considering Microsoft owns the Banjo and Conker IPs. This wiki has improved a lot since then, for sure. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 22:59, August 22, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Super Mario RPG}} Can I just say, the proposal as it's being presented right now seems a bit misleading. The title makes it sound like you're just removing images, when your edit suggests that you're also removing the Pokemon tables in all of the ''Smash Bros.'' game articles. You should probably change the title to match that. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 13:48, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
===Make categories for families===
:Sure. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:01, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
I've made a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Families|similar proposal]] a while back, but it didn't work out, so now I'm asking less: make categories for Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong and Toad's families. These are the only characters I know that have a family big enough to make it to a category. I mean, categories are made to... categorize things, and I actually think this would be a good thing. Oh, and Stanley the Bugman is Mario's cousin[https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/28/smash-it-up-from-the-trophy-case 「¹」] (unrelated, but meh).


{{@|Super Mario RPG}} I am not personally very invested in Pokémon material on the wiki, so I am abstaining for now, but if people want to represent these games on Super Mario Wiki, is there much intrinsic harm in that? I can see the benefit in having access to different sources that cover material in different ways. Otherwise we would probably need to discard all of our ''[[Super Mario 64]]'' material because that is the sole focus of our NIWA-affiliate {{iw|Ukikipedia|Main Page|Ukikipedia}}. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:05, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Weegie baby}}<br>'''Deadline''': January 30, 2025,  23:59 GMT
:I've had lots of discussion above that's probably given most points behind my argument. In one of the later messages I noted how ''Super Mario'' material in Smash Bros. is covered both here and on SmashWiki for obvious reasons, but that's because it falls under a key part of both wiki's scope. And I don't even need to say why we have a ''Super Mario 64'' on this wiki. This proposal isn't looking to completely axe any and all forms of mentioning Pokemon, but do consider how the Pokemon article was removed from unanimous consent and my point behind the grouping of Poke Ball Pokemon being 100% Pokemon and not a variety of franchise representations, like more key components of the Smash series like stages, items, and fighters. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:52, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
 
====Support====
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my vote last time, I don't see the harm in this.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} Per me.
 
====Oppose====


{{@|Hewer}} There's probably a lot of ''Smash'' coverage discrepancies due to several proposals in the past, some succeeding and some not. If there's other ''Smash Bros.'' groupings without any ''Super Mario'' involvement, like non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards, which are a component of a stage, those should absolutely become the focus of a separate proposal. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:50, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
====Comments====
:OK, but why should Venusaur be removed from the Stage Hazard list but Whispy Woods is perfectly fine (to say nothing about all the ones in later games)? It doesn't make sense. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:26, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Weegie baby}} You can put in a support vote if you want to. Even the proposer gets to vote! {{User:Sparks/sig}} 16:31, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::This proposal is about limiting excessive Pokemon information relating to ''Smash Bros.'' Since this proposal already covers a lot, it may make sense to run a separate concurrent proposal to remove all non-''Super Mario'' stage hazard components. The deletion of the Pokemon article in particular has set a precedent to removing excessive Pokemon coverage, and should this pass, the precedent (in a separate proposal) would be to discuss the removal of other non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards. This proposal was originally just about the Poke Ball Pokemon, but Koopa con Carne's support vote made me realize it could apply to the Saffron City hazards too. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:49, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:Yeah, I forgot, thanks. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 08:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::I'm going to be blunt - the current state of the Smash 64 page is how all our ''Smash'' pages should be. No more, no less. Linking to other wikis as necessary, but acknowledging the existence of what else is there in a consistent manner. ''That'' is what should be proposed. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:53, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::So in other words, deleting the non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards doesn't have a precedent yet. One could make a proposal about taking out all of the stage hazard lists, and someone could point out the inconsistency of keeping that out while keeping Poke Ball Pokemon lists. One thing at a time. It's not easy to cover all of the loose ends under a single proposal. If this passes and another proposal for deleting non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards is made, perhaps unique input would be given. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:57, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::I just cannot understand why you think removing good information makes things "better." Its origin is irrelevant when it's on the page for a crossover title, not a page for those individual subjects. It's better the way it is now, the only thing that needs changed is those ridiculous series-wide "list" pages (and enemy list pages) need to be merged into the game pages. ''That'' is where the focus should be. Not on trying to "fix" what isn't broken. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:04, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::For the reason that me and the others supporting the proposal see it as lacking relation to ''Super Mario''. Anyways, I've added another voting option to remove Poke Ball Pokemon in consideration (but not exclusively to) those who want a single future proposal that concerns non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards outright. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:07, August 22, 2024 (EDT)


I know folks here care a lot about how we cover content pertaining to the ''Super Mario'' franchise. That is appreciated passion, but a lot of the discussion here has devolved into uncharitable accusations at one another, which both weakens one's points and, more importantly, is just unkind. I encourage folks to maintain {{wp|good faith}}. Even if one has trepidations about the long-term consequences of this specific proposal if it passes, there was absolutely no harm in raising it. What we have here are dueling perspectives on what type of coverage is extraneous and what is within our scope, and that is not as huge a deal as it is being made out to be. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 22:09, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
Each of these new categories should have at least '''five entries'''; see [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope]]. I'm not sure Donkey Kong, Toad, or Peach meets the minimum number of entries. Would the Koopalings still count as Bowser's family?--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 23:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:If you noticed I actually mentioned that very thing (ctrl+f "good faith" lol) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:35, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:Donkey Kong certainly has enough, though there might be a bit of overlap with [[:Category:Kongs]]. Peach and Toad probably have enough if you count [[List of implied characters|implied characters]] (which can be included in the categories as redirects). More examples were mentioned in the previous proposal's comments. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:23, January 18, 2025 (EST)
::Coincidentally, earlier, I wanted to say how the discussion felt as if they reached a point of spiraling in circles, or even derailed to off-topic, but was worried that statement would be deemed discourteous. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 22:37, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::Yeah no worries, we definitely have irreconcilable differences in how we view this. If you want to stop debating this directly, then I do too. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:47, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::That's how I feel. It seems to have taken its course. With every response, we each felt compelled to respond. I think every position on each side has been exhausted, or stated on the comments above. There's people who took my side on this and others who took yours. Someone apparently read everything below in the comments as well before casting a vote. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 22:50, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::Doc von Schmeltwick: well. okey dokey, then. [[File:RosalinaPortraits3-MPSR.png]] {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:45, August 22, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Super Mario RPG}} I understand the desire to remove content one thinks is extraneous, but something I do like that is offered on Super Mario Wiki that has no presence on Smash Wiki are nicely curated gallery pages for each of the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games, especially for legitimate pieces of artwork. For reasons that were not apparent in my years over at Smash Wiki, that is just not something they feel inclined to integrate. While I would not personally lose sleep over the removal of screenshots, I want not like to, say, see artwork of a Pokémon in ''Brawl'' deleted from the gallery page because we are only keeping the one from ''Ultimate''. Is that a misread of the proposal's scope, or would those kinds of removals happen? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:07, August 23, 2024 (EDT)
:Here are 5 people in each family:
:Going from your example, no, artwork of Pokemon from earlier ''Smash'' games won't be removed under the scope of this proposal '''UNLESS''' they are Poke Ball summons without a newer artwork replacement by the time of ''Smash Ultimate''. I'm unsure if I can change at this point, since the proposal's been ongoing for a few days. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 23:21, August 23, 2024 (EDT)
:Peach’s family: [[Princess Peach]]; [[Princess Daisy]]; [[Mushroom King]]; [[Gramma Toadstool]]; [[Obā-chan]]; etc.<br>Bowser’ family: [[Koopalings]] (even more than 5); etc.<br>Donkey Kong’s family: [[Donkey Kong]]; [[Donkey Kong Jr.]]; [[Cranky Kong]]; [[Wrinkly Kong]]; [[Uncle Julius]]; etc.<br>Toad’s family: [[Toad]]; [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus|Mushroom Marauder]]; [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus|Jake the Crusher Fungus]]; [[Gramps]]; [[Toadette]] (Toad’s sister sometimes); etc (in this case, [[Moldy]] and [[Toad's cousin|Toad’s cousin]]).
:{{@|Nintendo101}} I added a separate voting option. Does it fall under the scope of your concern over the status of the artworks? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 23:44, August 23, 2024 (EDT)
:I actually thought there should be an article for Dixie’s family, but there are only 4 known members (unless we count [[Baby Kong]]), so her family should be in the category for Donkey Kong’s. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 15:25, January 18, 2025 (EST)
::It's not about number of people but '''entries'''. [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus]] is a single entry. It really looks like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Daisy and Toadette because of single throwaway lines in the Prima guides? Implied characters? Baby versions? As [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope]] says: "a minimum of '''five entries''' (including any subcategories' entries), however they ''should'' have many more than that, since small lists can simply be placed on an article that's central to the subject at hand (for example, the six [[Dixie Kong's Photo Album#Aquatic Attackers|Aquatic Attackers]] are listed on that very page, which they all link back to)." Mario and Luigi's family got their own category because there were so many entries. They have their own page because putting it all on Mario's page is cumbersome. Right now, Toad and Peach's families can fit into single paragraphs in their respective articles. Donkey Kong's only has Cranky due to his ambiguous identity. I can get behind Bowser since his family has its own template, even if there are lots of retconned and implied characters in it.--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 20:26, January 18, 2025 (EST)


{{@|ThePowerPlayer}} "Once and only once" does not cover what other wikis do. As previously mentioned, NIWA has a wiki completely dedicated to ''Super Mario 64'', yet that does not affect our coverage on it in the slightest. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:20, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
==Removals==
:Agreed with Doc here in that this rule specifically only applies (and should apply) within this site. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:28, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
===Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects===
:{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} The very first sentence on the main page of Ukikipedia states that the goal of that wiki is to document "expert level knowledge of Super Mario 64", and one look at any article on the wiki reflects its purpose: to cover extreme technical details about the game that are only of interest to a highly technically minded audience, rather than a general audience. For example, Ukikipedia's [[ukikipedia:Mario|Mario]] article contains precisely nothing about Mario's character or his involvement in the game's story, and his infobox neglects common features such as his full name in favor of the exact size of his hitbox and his tangibility radius. The Super Mario Wiki and Ukikipedia are separate wikis because they exist to fulfill entirely separate niches. Ukikipedia knows this, which is why its main page directly suggests users to visit the Super Mario Wiki for more general information about ''Super Mario 64''.<br>I know that the "once and only once" page was written to apply only to this wiki, and that this wiki can't control what another wiki does, but that doesn't eliminate the redundancy caused by featuring a table which has no relation to the subject matter of this wiki. The Poké Ball Pokémon belong on Bulbapedia because they are Pokémon (the central subject of Bulbapedia), and they belong on SmashWiki because they are from the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games (the central subject of SmashWiki). Neither of those relationships apply to the ''Super Mario'' franchise because ''Super Smash Bros.'' is not inherently based on ''Super Mario''; even given all of the series that fall under the ''Super Mario'' franchise, the majority of content in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games simply has nothing to do with ''Super Mario'', because ''Super Smash Bros.'' acts as a melting pot for many different franchises, only one of which is ''Super Mario''.<br>I was planning to write about this in my vote, but it was already becoming too large and I felt that my central arguments were communicated clearly. I did want to elaborate upon this specific point anyway, though. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 16:13, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
The existence of these was brought to our attention thanks to a redirect called [[Mario Party 13]] (as of proposal, this leads to ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]'', which is already marked for deletion. This concerns both that redirect, as well as [[MP11]], [[MP12]], and [[MP13]].
::"''extreme technical details about the game that are only of interest to a highly technically minded audience''" You've just described all my experiences attempting to read Smashwiki... anyways, it also has DK, Yoshi, and Wario in said melting pot, so it's not like Mario's a minority there. But getting off-track again. The fact of the matter is Smashwiki and Bulbapedia don't ''want'' to cover these in the manner we do, particularly with their complete lack of game-based image galleries. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:16, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
:::I still fail to see what makes it Mario Wiki's business to do something a different site doesn't do for one reason or another. Other than the oft-repeated "we've always done it this way". {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:22, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
::::Which means there's nothing that prohibits us from doing so, so we are under no obligation to stop doing so. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it. As I explained above with the "amount of stuff from each franchise included in Smash 64" list, ''Mario'' has a disproportionately large amount of influence. ''Hiding'' what isn't "directly related" therefore does more harm than good by leaving notable gaps, unlike, say, ''Zelda'', where all they ''need'' to cover is "gaps" (though there's nothing stopping them from adding more if they want to). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:26, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
:::::My point was that even when considering all of the franchises that encompass the greater ''Super Mario'' franchise (''Mario'', ''Yoshi'', ''Donkey Kong'', and ''Wario''), they only constitute a fraction of the game as a whole. By far the main draw of the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games are its playable fighters, and quite literally two-thirds of the fighters in ''Super Smash Bros.'' for the Nintendo 64 have nothing to do with any of the four franchises listed above. To give equal coverage to every part of a game that, by majority, is not a ''Super Mario'' game on the Super Mario Wiki is misleading to the purpose of this wiki. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 16:37, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
::::::I'm not saying to give "equal" coverage, though; I'm not asking they all be re-split into individual articles. I just think it's in our best interest to include all the games' elements on the games' respective pages, by way of tables and galleries - the same as we would for any other game, but with the links going off-site for things we don't have articles on - which this proposal is trying to remove pieces of. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:44, August 26, 2024 (EDT)


Hi, again. The other day, Super Mario RPG [[User talk:Nintendo101#Appreciate the proposal input|reached out to me]] concerning this proposal. I am abstaining for now, but I wanted to share my thoughts here because I thought they could be helpful.
Simply put, these redirects seem to be entirely based on rather uncommon fan nicknames for ''[[Super Mario Party]]'', ''[[Mario Party Superstars]]'', and ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]''. We can't find any sources that call these games Mario Parties 11, 12, or 13. Random flavor text notes that Super Mario Party is "the 11th party", but that's as close as you get. And unlike, say, our similarly deprecated "[[Fury Bowser|God Slayer Bowser]]" redirect, we don't even think there's any particular confusion that those are the respective names of the games. Given the unofficial origins of these nicknames, as well as the fact they seem to not even be that used, we don't see any harm in getting rid of these.


<blockquote>While I do generally prefer main game articles are more holistically complete (regardless of whether they are crossovers) and I do agree with Doc von Schmeltwick's point that what crossover material warrants coverage on Super Mario Wiki is inherently unclear for any visitor, Smash Wiki truly has an {{iw|smashwiki|Poké Ball|excellent Poké Ball article}} and full coverage for the hazards as well. Perhaps our articles could better be understood as harbors that can direct readers to those Smash Wiki pages and simply touch upon them briefly in our main game articles. (I do wish Smash Wiki included little visual previews for what the Pokémon look like on their article, but that is someone those users can integrate if they would like.) I agree we do not need full lists on Poké Ball Pokémon, non-Mario Assist Trophies, stages, etc.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT


However, I do appreciate that the the crossover material of ''Smash Bros.'' is a bit more mechanically intimate than something like ''NES Remix'' or ''Nintendo Land'': the Pokémon released from Poké Balls can physically attack Mario, Luigi, and the other Mario characters in the games, and that detail is not diluted simply because they can also do this to Marth or Sephiroth as well.</blockquote>
====Delete (party's over!)====
(So I do not agree with comments from {{User|ThePowerPlayer}} on this material having "nothing to do" with ''Super Mario'', and I understand why other users would want to hang onto this material.)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Fairly self-explanatory; unofficial title? That's a paddlin'. Unofficial title that doesn't even seem to be that widely used? That's a paddlin'.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Does anyone actually call those games ''Mario Party 11'', ''12'' or ''13''? Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} What if games with these actual titles released? Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per all.
#{{User|Drago}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} The fact that a user tagged the MP13 redirects for deletion with the reason of ''"Jamboree would be 12, since Superstars seems to be in the same vein as Top 100"'' and re-redirected the MP12 ones from ''Superstars'' to ''Jamboree'', already tells me that there doesn't seem to be a general agreement whether Mario Party 12 would be Superstars or Jamboree anyway.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Honestly, I’m already on edge on Mario Parties 6-10 because of the non-mainline Mario Parties, but unlike those 5 games, the three concerned don’t even use those as their own game, not to mention ''Jamboree'' is basically a sequel to ''Super Mario Party''.


<blockquote>I disagree with Doc on principal that we should "never delete anything ever." There are no sacred assets uploaded to the wiki, and it is a shared space. It should be okay and uncontroversial to delete unused files. But I am also a bit wary of supporting proposals that hamstring what other users can or cannot write about. I do not personally know to what degree ''Smash Bros.'' is within our scope of coverage. But if large swaths of the userbase want to cover that stuff, I do not think that is such a bad thing. To be clear, the inverse is true as well. If most folks wanted all of this stuff removed, I would think that is fine. Smash Wiki exists, and it is an active community. I'm just not sure it's my place to put my thumb on the scale.</blockquote>
====Delete MP12/MP13, keep MP11 (...except you, you stay.)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we personally feel like a clean sweep makes the most sense, but we understand the merit of keeping MP11 given that at least ''Super Mario Party'' has ''a'' piece of dialogue calling it the 11th party.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my comment and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Create a Mario Party 11 redirect|the proposal that added the Mario Party 11 redirect]].
#{{User|Arend}} Secondary choice; I guess it makes sense to still call ''Super Mario Party'' the 11th one, and my vote for deleting them all stems from the confusion whether Superstars or Jamboree is the 12th one, a discussion from which ''Super'' is exempt.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Secondary option. I’m sure there is like 6% of users who would search ‘MP11’, but ''Jamboree'' is basically SMP2 anyways, and whether MPS or Jamboree is MP12 is so confusing we might as well delete MP12 and 13.


I think there are dueling philosophies on what is within the scope of Super Mario Wiki, and it seems like there are about the same number of users for and against coverage of non-''Mario'' ''Smash Bros.'' material. I think doing these piecemeal proposals to establish precedent for future actions is unwise and little dishonest. '''I recommend someone make one big proposal addressing all of this: Poké Balls, non-''Mario'' Assist Trophies, Stages, Trophies, Stickers, Spirits, Fighters, the main ''Super Smash Bros.'' articles. Everything.''' Because this current approach gradually fractures coverage, which is not enjoyable to engage with as a reader. The way things are is already confusing.
====Keep (party on!)====
<s>#{{User|Hewer}} Per my comment and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Create a Mario Party 11 redirect|this proposal]].</s>


What constitutes a franchise, what our NIWA affiliates do, what the precedents are for keeping/removing content, are not of substantive importance. We should not be making curatorial decisions based on what other websites do, or whether an idea decided upon by proposal in the past is still followed today. The only question worth asking is '''do we <u>want</u> non-''Mario'' ''Smash Bros.'' content to be within our scope of coverage, or not?''' - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:42, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
====Comments (idle party chat)====
I do think fan nicknames [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/53#Recreate the numbered Mario Kart redirects|can be allowed as redirects]], so I'd vote to keep Mario Party 11 (because of the "eleventh party" mention in the game) but delete the other two (because then it starts getting ambiguous as to what counts). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:45, January 9, 2025 (EST)


:I understand the points provided, but it's too late to cancel the proposal, and it's looking to pass in the next 50 hours or so (based on how things are going). If this proposal were about items but not stages, that's one thing, since those are major, but Poke Balls, as reiterated many times, serve merely as components of an item. The functions of each Pokemon has no relevance to ''Super Mario''. I'd wait for this proposal to pass before someone else decides to make a giant proposal covering it all. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 18:50, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
This is up for debate, because there's redirects for [[Mario Kart 1]] through [[Mario Kart 6]], so if these are to be affected, then they'd need to go too, but I see no reason to remove those as they may come in handy if someone wants to search for the [[Mario Kart 5|5th Mario Kart]] for example. Simply ask "what's the [[Mario Party 11|eleventh Mario Party]]?" and there it is. Another proposal with tons of grey area unaccounted for it seems. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 13:28, January 12, 2025 (EST)
::Will it? There's rules about margins for proposals with multiple options, after all.
:I'm not fond of "MK6"-style redirects, but at least there's no confusion about the 6th ''Mario Kart'' game was and you can be pretty sure that there will never be a game titled ''Mario Kart 6''. However, you wouldn't create a "MK9" redirect to ''Mario Kart Tour'', would you? It is debatable whether this game would count as the 9th ''Mario Kart'', and Nintendo could still release a game titled ''Mario Kart 9'' in the future. I admit that it is less likely that Nintendo would release an actual ''Mario Party 11'', but it could still happen – they did release ''New Super Mario Bros. 2'' when there was already [[New Super Mario Bros. Wii|a second ''NSMB'']] after all. As for people who would know what is the 11th ''Mario Party'' released on a home console (which is not the 11th ''Mario Party'' game overall if you include the handheld games), they will probably want to find the 12th as well, which, since there's no consensus on what ''Mario Party 12'' should even be (''Superstars'' or ''Jamboree''?), would probably only lead to frustration no matter what we choose "MP12" to redirect to. Frankly, unless Nintendo suddenly announces a game titled ''Mario Party 14'' which would retroactively confirm that the current Switch games are ''MP11'', ''MP12'' and ''MP13'', I would rather not keep these redirects. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 06:07, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::Anywho, how I would do it would be as N101 said: I would:
::This is why I'm in support of only keeping the Mario Party 11 redirect, as Birdo states in dialogue in the game that it's the "eleventh party", so it's not ambiguous whether it counts. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:04, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::*Merge the "List of items in Smash" page to the games entirely, turning that into a redirect to a section on the series page
:::Question! Would it be too late to add a "keep MP11, delete MP12/MP13" option to this proposal? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:08, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::*Merge the "enemies" pages to their respective game
::::You can add options within the first four days of a proposal's creation, so yes, I think today is the last day you can add an option. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:15, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::*Merge the "Subspace Army" and "Subspace Stages" lists to each other to recreate a watered-down version of the Subspace Emissary page (to split from the Brawl page due to length and being exclusive to that campaign); it would also include a table for characters describing their role in said campaign, as well as objects/items found exclusively in it (Trophy Stands, the funny boxes, the metallic barrel cannons, etc).
:::::Nintendo is probably not going to release Mario Party 14 (too lazy to do italics), because they’ll probably make Super Mario Party Superstars Jamboree or Super Mario Party Jamboree 2 or whatever. {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:25, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::*Section each game akin to how I have the SSB64 page currently, ''including'' sections for Pokemon, Assist Trophies, Bosses, etc., and links to other wikis for subjects that we don't need pages on.
::*Leave the lists for fighters, stages, and (series-wide) bosses alone (for now at least).
::*Have image galleries cover ''everything'' that can reasonably be included in an image gallery for the game, regardless of origin. This includes artwork, sprites, models, screenshots, etc, for any subject - yes, including Pokemon.
::*Leave Stickers and Spirits alone, their pages are too large to merge and are fine as they are for the reasons that opposition to deleting them historically has brought up.
::*Keep trophy pages covering only ''Mario'' things, leave the remainder in the game gallery.
::That is probably the most ideal way of doing it. Anyone who prefers this method should go ahead and oppose this proposal so that this method can be proposed instead. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:57, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
:::The only mention of Pokemon above is the "Section each game," which this proposal from its inception has sought to remove. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:02, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
::::Indeed, which is why this proposal is contrary to what I find to be the ideal solution and why I vehemently oppose it. Also, not anymore: adding gallery mention, since I guess that's not as obvious as I thought. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:04, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Even if I have the authority to cancel this proposal, I'm not going to do it. I'd prefer the "line in the sand" proposal to be in response to this one, whether this one succeeds or fails. Though I don't have an idea as to how such a proposal would be structured. I don't think there's any more points to bring up. You have people agreeing with you and I have people agreeing with me. There's the stress of reading all of the comments above, and I doubt that any more comments will change others' mind on the matter (oppose to support or vice versa). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:11, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
::::::I'm sorry if I implied one "needed" to drop this current proposal. I'm not in charge of anyone or anything, and there's always next time. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:27, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::I'm gonna clarify the "don't delete anything" thing; note that I said that the "pages for the entirety of the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' worlds" were both worth deleting. I more think that if anything has a ''chance'' to become relevant again, it's best to keep the history, and even without that case, keeping the history while the page is a redirect helps to better illustrate ''why'' it was determined to be unnecessary. Since we don't redirect images, that's not so much an option there, which is why I'm much more wary about them being deleted. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:46, August 26, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Ahemtoday}} I'm still letting this proposal run its course first, then perhaps in at least four weeks from now (28 days minimum, I think was the threshold) can revisit that idea. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:01, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
[[Mario Party 12]] leads to SMPJ... {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 08:50, January 18, 2025 (EST)
:It still makes sense to oppose this proposal out of support for Doc's idea, since we wouldn't need to then undo this proposal's removals. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:28, August 27, 2024 (EDT)


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Shorten disambiguation identifiers "(Super) Nintendo Entertainment System" to "(S)NES"===
===Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"===
There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?
 
Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.
 
This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Blank support====
#{{User|Mario}} Per all.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
#{{User|PopitTart}} <small>(This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)</small>
#{{User|Altendo}} <small>(Look at the code for my reasoning)</small><!---It might not seem annoying, but over time, or answering multiple proposals at once, it can start putting stress. Copy-pasting can be done, but it is just much easier to not type anything at all.---->
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}}
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really ''are'' just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at ''all.'' <small>(Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)</small> <!---Silent per all.---->
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
#{{user|TheDarkStar}} - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
#{{user|Ninja Squid}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}}
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} I am arguably in agreement with some of the opposition who argue that even "per all" should go in favor of each voter making an argument or explaining themselves, but if "per all" stays, then I don't really have a problem with allowing blank votes as well. I would prefer a proposal on getting rid of "per all" overall as its a bit of a lazy cop-out (at least name a specific guy you agree with), but a blank vote ultimate just means they agree with the OP's point and chose to vote with them - and I don't have a problem with that.
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all. The idea that you can't infer what a blank vote means is absolute pedantic nonsense. The idea that per all has this grand meaning or that if we allow blank votes people could abuse voting is ridiculous. News flash if people wanna abuse votes they can just put per all. Do you people hear yourselves? The idea that a blank vote can lead to an anarchy of votes nobody can understand or will lead to this great rush of bad faith votes but the 7 characters that spell out per all will protect us from the anarchy is a goddamn preposterous argument.
#{{User|MCD}} - If we allow per all votes then there's no reason not to allow a blank vote that clearly infers the same thing. If someone makes a blank vote and you don't understand why then you can always ask them to expand in the comments. Outside of that the only real argument against this is personal preference which shouldn't dictate whether we allow this or not.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all/proposal votes are already rarely, if ever, scrutinized. Allowing blank votes won't change that, and I don't think most voters necessarily put as much thought into them as some of the opposition seems to think. I know I've cast per all votes in proposals where I agree with the premise but my thoughts don't align 100% with everyone who has voted already. You can just as easily cast a bad faith vote disguised under per all as you could a blank vote anyway, but we really shouldn't be assuming anyone is participating in proposals in bad faith without a good reason. (Also, having to write "per proposal" on your own proposal is silly.)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>per Shoey.</s> per Mario's comments below. I found them contextualizing. I don't think this really the big deal folks think it would be - we should assume good faith of fellow users regardless. And if this doesn't workout as expected, there is nothing preventing folks from trying to overturn this in a couple months if they so choose.


The console names "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" are way too long and clunky, so much so that the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles throughout the wiki, even though we usually don't use abbreviations. And yet, we still use the full console names in the disambiguation identifiers of article names:
====Blank Oppose====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
#{{User|Technetium}} I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone ''does'' provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} {{color|white|Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type ''two words''.}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all <small>(is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)</small>
#{{User|Axii}} Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
#{{user|DesaMatt}} Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii and Mister Wu.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per Camwoodstock, Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii, and Mister Wu
#{{User|Scrooge200}} A blank vote would be hard to interpret, and you should at least give ''some'' reasoning rather than none at all. A "per all" sends the message that the voter has read the proposal and all its votes and is siding with them. For more heated proposals, a blank vote is basically arbitrary because it doesn't tell you anything about why they chose the side they did.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per opposition. "Per [someone]" implies that you took the time to peruse someone's arguments, is an explicit and articulate enough way to show support for those, and it's typically only around a dozen characters long including the space. A blank vote is ambiguous--it could be what I just described, or it can be a vessel for drive-by voting, bandwagoning, or even a simple bias towards the fictional thing so discussed. Sure, the weight of your vote would the same regardless, but if I'm not able to tell which user's case you express your support for, be it the proposer themself or one of the voters, I can just as easily infer that you're not engaging with the proposal in good faith. Give your vote a meaning.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} 2 things: Putting a blank vote doesn’t automatically mean you agree with previous voters. It may mean you’re voting because you like voting, or you may have accidentally saved changes before typing a reason. And… It’s not really a big deal to type 6 letters, 1 blank and 1 full stop. If you are too lazy to type 1 a, 1 e, 2 l, 1 p, 1 r, 1 blank, and 1 full stop, it implies you are too lazy to vote properly.
#{{User|Hewer}} I see the arguments for both sides but I'm slightly leaning towards this one. Even if blank votes are supposed to be interpreted as "per all" votes, that wouldn't be obvious to anyone unfamiliar with this policy, and it shouldn't be that big a deal to have to write two three-letter words to clarify the reasoning for a vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. The reason you're expected to provide an explanation with your vote is to drive discussion and to help people interpret the final result of the proposal. "Why did this proposal succeed?" "Why did this proposal fail?" While "per all" isn't the ''most'' useful reasoning to provide, at least it's ''something''. I understand the concept of treating blank votes as equivalent to "per all", but there's no guarantee that future wiki editors would understand it.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick, Technetium, Camwoodstock, Ahemtoday, Jdtendo, Axii, Pseudo, Mister Wu, DesaMatt, Blinker, Killer Moth, Scrooge200, Koopa con Carne, Mushroom Head, Hewer, and JanMisali. No one needs to type all that out, though, when all you need to do is say "per all" to indicate that you have interacted with and understand the proposal on at least a basic level.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} per all <small><small><small>(this may be the only time I've typed this without putting a silly spin on it, I've got nothing else to add that hasn't already been said)</small></small></small>
<s>#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides ''some'' insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.</s>


*[[Mario is Missing! (Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Mario is Missing!'' (Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
====Blank Comments====
*[[Mario is Missing! (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Mario is Missing!'' (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)
*[[Wario's Woods (Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Wario's Woods'' (Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
:I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
*[[Wario's Woods (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Wario's Woods'' (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
::There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:::My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::::My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the  odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:{{@|Mario}} I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)
:In my opinion, saying "per OP" or "per (insert user here) is just as much effort as saying "per all" and at least demonstrates a modicum of original thought. I think that a blank vote is essentially the same as just voicing that you agree with the OP, so I did vote for that option in this case - but I think per all does an equally poor job to a blank vote at explaining what you think. At least requiring specific users to be hit with the "per" when voting would give far more of a baseline than "per all". That's not really what this proposal is about though, so I won't dwell on it. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 00:22, January 2, 2025 (EST)


The identifiers are so long that they take up more than half of the article name and are less immediately legible than their respective abbreviations. This is particularly jarring on the ''[[Mario is Missing!]]'' disambiguation page because the abbreviations are used on the page (e.g., "''Mario is Missing!'', the '''NES''' game") but it links to articles with names containing the full console names ("''Mario is Missing!'' ('''Nintendo Entertainment System''')").
Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)


That's why I propose to shorten "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" to "NES" and "SNES" respectively in disambiguation identifiers of article names:
I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring ''a'' written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)


*{{fake link|''Mario is Missing!'' (NES)}}
{{@|Fun With Despair}} And a blank oppose vote would mean what, exactly? At least with "per" votes, it's obvious that there must first be someone to agree with, in this case, the other opposers. A blank oppose vote on the other hand is little better than a vote just saying "No". <small>Which, imo, also should not be allowed.</small> [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 09:27, January 9, 2025 (EST)
*{{fake link|''Mario is Missing!'' (SNES)}}
:{{@|Blinker}} If you can't pick at least one user to specifically reference in a "Per _____", then I don't think the vote has much merit to begin with. "Per All" is just as much a "No" vote as a blank would be. It's lazy and barely tells anything about your opinion whatsoever or even if you bothered to read the other votes. If we are allowing them at all, a blank and a Per All should be equivalent. I would prefer we ban both, but oh well.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 22:55, January 9, 2025 (EST)
*{{fake link|''Wario's Woods'' (NES)}}
::I disagree. A "per all" vote tells you that the voter agrees with all the previous votes, and sees the reasoning given by them as good justification for voting the same way. I don't see how that's less valid than only agreeing with a specific user. Of course, if someone is writing only "per all" just because it's an easy way to not have to give an actual reason, that isn't right, but that doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with "per all" votes. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 11:55, January 11, 2025 (EST)
*{{fake link|''Wario's Woods'' (SNES)}}
:This is a bit of an extreme-case scenario here, but imagine a proposal which is a landslide failure, only 1 support from the author and 20 opposes. Consider how the creator of that proposal would feel in the scenario where the opposition is 1 proper vote and 19 "per" votes, versus an opposition of 20 votes that are all completely blank. How would they handle the former? The latter?<br>To take it a bit more extreme, say you were tasked to make a follow-up proposal. How exactly would you go about it in the former case? Could you do the same thing in the latter case? Does the question ''even make sense at all'' in the latter case?<br>In no uncertain terms: how exactly should one be expected to set up a proper proposal if they're only met with silent disapproval? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 03:35, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::What the hell are you talking about? What's the difference between 20 per all votes against you or 20 blank votes against you? An ass kicking is an ass kicking. I'd feel the exact same way either way "wow people really hated my idea." Again the idea that there's this huge difference between 20 people saying per Shoey and 20 people not saying that, especially if the rules say that blank votes should be considered the equivalent of a per all or a proposal. What is a person supposed to do in any scenario where they lose in a landslide? They accept that there idea is unpopular and move on (or they throw a huge fit and get told to fuck off) {{User|Shoey}}
:::This is about wiki maintenance, not social dynamics you'd find in middle school. If you're going to have a landslide loss, the least everyone in the room could be bothered to do is at least ''say why.'' Because otherwise, well, as far as the proposal creator is concerned, ''any'' blank vote could be telling them to fuck off. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::This proposal passing wouldn't even allow this scenario to happen. The point is to classify all blank votes as "per all", and if you have 20 blank votes with not actual reasoning, then none of them would actually count because there's no reasoning for them to per by. The first vote would have to have a reason, and in that case both situations you've come up with here are exactly the same. {{User:Shy Guy on Wheels/sig}} 11:12, January 17, 2025 (EST)


Please note that there is already an article which uses an abbreviated identifier: "[[Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES)|Building World (''Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters'' for SNES)]]", although if we decide to keep the full identifiers, maybe we should rename it to "{{fake link|Building World (''Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters'' for Super Nintendo Entertainment System)}}" for consistency?
I don't understand the majority of the oppositions. The idea that blank votes could encourage drive by voting or bandwagon voting like what are talking about? Do you think people can't bandwagon vote with a per all or a per proposal? There's already nothing stopping somebody from voting and then never checking the proposal again in the current system. If people wanna make bad faith votes they already can! They just say per all, or per proposal, or per so and so. There's no eliminating least of all with some arbitrary per proposal requirements. {{User|Shoey}}
:That's assuming bad faith in written "per" votes. I already said that a blank vote can be equated to ''anything'', constructive or frivolous, it ultimately depends on how you personally imagine it to be. It can have the exact same exact rhetoric value as fandom-driven voting, as in "I vote to make a page for X game/character because it is my favorite game/character!" and you wouldn't be able to tell. Unless you ask that user for clarification, at which point you might as well cut the middleman and enforce users to state something in their vote like currently. An explicit "per" is not only more on-point, but takes only a few keyboard presses to type out. I'd be more open to a proposal that seeks to allow blank votes as an express "I agree with the proposer in particular but not necessarily the voters", because as it stands, a blank vote can be worth jack-all. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 08:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:The problem is that a blank vote, even if we ''say'' it equals "per", there is no way to tell if that's how someone is actually using it unless they're otherwise asked; and if they get asked, well, they'll more likely than not just say "oh yeah, it was totally a per all!". And when you open the gates to "using a blank vote as anything"... well, you open the proverbial floodgates. Does the person have something thoughtful to say that they just don't feel like they can phrase correctly? Does the person feel like everything else has been said, an ''actual'' per vote? Do they think "'''YOU SHOULD EAT A BOWL OF NAILS AS RECOMPENSE FOR YOUR FOOLISHNESS AND YOU MUST WALLOW IN THE MISERY AND HUMILIATION YOU DESERVE AND OR GO AWAY FROM THE LIFE OF THE WIKI FOREVER PLEASE'''" and hold nothing but contempt for the fact you would put something up to proposal, if not more than that? Or do they just. Literally not care. And they didn't even read the proposal for 2 seconds before picking the option that sounded kinda neat. And if you asked them, they would say "wait, ''that'' is what we're voting on?" What are they actually thinking? All you see is literally no text at all. For all you know, it could be all of the above, or none of those at all. If you ask them to clarify, and they don't, what exactly do you do in that case? What's different from ''their'' blank vote aside from the fact they were questioned for it? It's utter nonsense.<br>tl;dr; even if we ''say'' "a blank is per all", a blank vote tells you absolutely nothing about what the voter actually thinks, up to and including that you can't actually tell if they're ''using it properly as a per vote''. And in trying to fix that issue, well, there's a solution we can think of to fairly easily denote when a vote is a per vote; it's just 3 key presses, a space bar press, 3 more key presses, and the period key. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:28, January 17, 2025 (EST)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Jdtendo}}<br>
Read from here:
'''Deadline''': <s>August 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to August 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to September 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support (SNES)====
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposal and similarly passed earlier proposal on shortening identifiers of the second and third ''Donkey Kong Country'' games.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario shroom}} too long, agree.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Let's simplify the names.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per proposal and the earlier ''Donkey Kong Country'' proposal that Super Mario RPG mentioned, as well as Technetium and Jdtendo in the comments.
<strike>#{{User|Pseudo}} Per all.</strike>


====Oppose (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)====
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't see much of a problem with [[The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens|long names]], and I'd rather go without the inconsistency created by these being the only shortened console names. And yes, I suppose we should move the Building World page too, like how "Beach Volleyball (''Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games'' for 3DS)" got moved to "[[Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS)|Beach Volleyball (''Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games'' for Nintendo 3DS)]]".
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Hewer. While these shortened versions do make for fine redirects (and honestly, I kinda hope these do get made for other games in the form of redirects, but that's neither here nor there), we probably shouldn't be enforcing these as being the default name unless it's a part of a global move to abbreviate the console names for the articles of ''every'' game--not just one random edutainment game.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Hewer and Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.


====Comments (''Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters'' for SNES)====
now there's a bit of a grey area here, what about consoles like Nintendo 64, Nintendo Switch and so on? It'd feel somewhat weird to abbreviate one but not the others, there'd be an inconsistency. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 09:33, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
:The thing with those is that the "Nintendo" part is needed or else it could just be confused as a random number (64) or word (switch). They also just aren't as long. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 09:57, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
::Besides, as I said in the proposal, the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles, but other console names are not abbreviated as frequently. For example, here is an extract of the [[LodgeNet]] article: "for the [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System|SNES]], [[Nintendo 64]], and [[Nintendo GameCube]]"; note how only the Super Nintendo Entertainment System's name is abbreviated whereas the other console names are written in full. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 10:09, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
:::I think the shortening of N64, GCN, GBA, etc. could use another propasal. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 21:30, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
::::{{@|Hewer}} Okay, [[The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens]]' name is ridiculous. I want to propose a shortening of the title, but I don't know enough about the character. But that just shows why page names shouldn't be too long. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 20:27, August 14, 2024 (EDT)
:::::...Not to burst your bubble, but [[Talk:The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens#Move to The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before it Happens (take two)|we actually had a proposal to move it to its current name ''last month'']]. Prior to that, the article was merely titled "The Old Psychic Lady", which from what I can tell was actually ''never actually used like that in the episode''. She introduced herself by the full title of "The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens" (whether it used capital letters or not is unknown), and the Marios simply refer her to as the "crazy lady" or "that psycho lady" since they can't properly remember such a long name. Since "The Old Psychic Lady" never was used as one of the official names, and the wiki refers to her by her full name anyway, it was proposed to move the article to the lady's full title (I mean, at least "NES" and "SNES" are officially used abbreviations by Nintendo themselves and their full names were not created for comedic purposes). {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:50, August 14, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Arguments about the name being "ridiculous" or "too long" were used in the proposal linked to by Arend, and much like with those arguments, you haven't substantiated the claim very well. Why is a long page name "ridiculous" when it's just accurately referring to the subject? Why should we sacrifice accuracy in favour of a shorter page name? What about long page names is in any way disadvantageous? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:37, August 15, 2024 (EDT)


Tbh, I'd merge the two Building Worlds together if it were up to me, they're still both represented by the same icon in the map screen and differences can easily be mentioned in the article, it'd also be consistent with the rest of the Mario's Early Years Worlds. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:09, August 15, 2024 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
===Do not use t-posing models as infobox images===
Self-explainatory aim for this proposal with the title, I'm proposing because I personally don't think t-posing models look good as introductory images. One case in point is on the [[Mega Baby Bowser]] article which used a t-posing model as its infobox image but was changed to a screenshot. [[Angler Poplin]] is an article that currently uses a t-posing model. Should this proposal pass, in-game screenshots will be used instead of t-posing images, or if possible a model which is not in a t-pose.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Nightwicked Bowser}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per proposal
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per Nightwicked Bowser.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} T-poses are clearly not how the characters are meant to be portrayed.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Makes sense to us! Per proposal.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This should also include non-t-posed bind models (a-posed models, nonbipedal characters) as well but that's a matter of jargon really.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Considering I went through the effort of posing the characters of my game Speed Prix before I uploaded them to the Speed Prix Wiki, I know T-poses are not good infobox images. And in the context of Mario games that you're not developing yourself, if artwork is not available, just use screenshots. That is much easier to get. The Models Resource is incomplete. And with other media, we have to.
#{{User|Axii}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Yeah, it looks strange and creepy with the t-poses. Per proposal.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per proposal. I especially agree that screenshots would be better.


====Oppose====
Do you know what I mean if this was my vote? {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:37, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, depending on whether the vote is placed in "Support" or "Oppose", I would know that your opinion is that you either agree with my proposal or you don't. I don't really see the problem with this personally. All that matters is whether you agree or disagree. As it stands, someone could vote against a proposal by just saying "No.", which is just as productive if not less.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 10:56, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::That's only your read of a blank vote. A blank vote can also just mean that the user agrees or disagrees with the proposal out of sheer sympathy for the fictional thing described in the proposal, for example. It doesn't just matter if you agree or disagree, because that can be purely subjective towards the subject at hand. If a "per" vote is already difficult to derive intent from, then a blank vote provides even fewer clues, with no way of knowing until the user clarifies their choice ''somehow''. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::If somebody wants to place a vote on a proposal because they're I dunno, in love with Luigi and doesn't want his article changed and not anything actually expressed in the proposal, they can already just write "per all" or even make a fake BS argument as it is. Writing "per all" has absolutely never discouraged anyone. Every single argument made regarding disingenuous voting can be applied to "Per all" or "Per proposal" or even just writing "No, just no." with no argument as I have literally seen people do with valid votes that get counted.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 13:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::We, respectfully, disagree with the notion that you can apply the same concerns with disingenuous votes to "per all"s, because the fundamental point of saying "per all" is to literally say, "per all the other voters." There is a fairly rigid definition for what "per all" means. It's the definition for the word "per", and the definition for the word "all". How do you define silence? Even if we say "blank means per all", how exactly do you plan to police that? How can you tell what they ''actually meant'' when you're given absolutely nothing to go off of? If someone places a "per all" vote, sure, it's hard to tell what their overall thoughts are, but there is at least something there to go off of--there is ''something that can be said about it''. What does this give you?: <!-- THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK --> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:41, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::: Respectfully, have you never heard of a liar? Anyone who would be abusing blank votes to push their agenda is likely already just lying and writing "per all" when in actuality they just don't like the proposer or some of the people voting against the proposal and don't want that side to win. If you GENUINELY believe that writing "per all" is some monumental feat of brave honesty that verified the voter's integrity beyond the shadow of a doubt, then I have a bridge or twenty to sell you. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 14:03, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::: Okay, genuine question here; what do you think we're thinking if we choose to respond like this: <!-- THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK --> <br> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::Well cam considering the fact that this proposal specifically pertains to blank votes being treated the same as per all votes. I'd say your blank comment is a fake bullshit straw argument trying to equate a blank comment to a blank vote. {{User|Shoey}}
:::::::I don't think anything because unlike a vote with two defined options (a big fat AGREE or DISAGREE) that indicates the opinion of a voter, your post is lacking that context. It is a strawman using a completely different scenario. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 15:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::The answer was that we were thinking "this entire ordeal is just begging for someone to misinterpret someone else that blows up in some stupid TikTok fandom drama-tier nonsense where nobody says anything of value and/or actively refuses to listen to what is said, a situation that we firmly do not want to be a part of, yet we're worried we're already careening towards it already if we're having people gladly chime in with 'i have a bridge to sell you's or 'or they just throw a fit and get told to fuck off's"... And then we got up because we had to run a few errands and get a drink, so we pre-wrote this before that. If you want to doubt this, be our guest, but we have a picture of this in our Notepad++, pre-written and all, with a timestamp from our computer clock--not a screenshot, as that would be easily edited, unlike a photograph of an LCD.<br>...So, like, see what we mean? You can't gleam ''anything'' from total silence. Is it just a silent agreement with the consensus? Is it apathy? Is it an irrational meltdown? (As of writing this, we ''cannot'' blame you if that's what you assumed if you didn't see us in the Discord, being fairly casual... Sorry. We really wanted to commit to this stupid point, and we promise we won't do it again.) Is it some secret test of character? Unless someone tells you and they can back it up, ''you don't know.''<br>Our ultimate point, we guess, is that you gain a bare minimum something from a "per all", but nothing is... well, nothing. And while it is extremely, and at this point, ''extraordinarily'' petty of us, we would rather have that bare minimum something, than nothing at all. Which, admittedly... is kinda just what we said in our own vote almost a month ago, huh. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::I feel that if a known liar and bad faith poster that is inexplicably not banned and voting in proposals tries to justify a bad faith position with a bad vote... vote against them.... If I'm inputting my vote with simply <code><nowiki>#{{User|Mario}}</nowiki></code> after a series of 5 votes making a case against a proposal, or me being the second support in a proposal that has already outlined its points, what motives are you expecting from me (I assume you trust me to make fair and respectful judgement)? Can you assume good faith? Why can't you extend this courtesy to most other users? Is it really necessary I type something out beyond this? Should I be forced to end my votes in periods? {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)


[[File:LM ending 13.png|thumb|Somehow one of my most contentious proposals I've ever made - {{User|Mario}} 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)]]
Can I just ask why it is that the primary concern of this proposal's discussion so far has been the concern of "bad-faith voting"? Is there any kind of basis in recent events to justify this kind of concern over "drive-bys"? I don't really have a strong opinion either direction, but I'm not sure why we're so nervous about the potential of blank votes suddenly being moves towards people like, completely overrunning the proposals page or something? Feels like a slippery slope argument to me. [[User:Roserade|Roserade]] ([[User talk:Roserade|talk]]) 13:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:I'm not sure why the concern relies solely on bad-faith assumption of people casting votes. We're not supposed to be assuming bad faith or ulterior motives from blank votes. I can't understand how "per proposal" or "per all" alleviate those. People also say "just write it out anyway" but this is like forcing people to end their votes in full sentences with a full period. It's ''only'' one more keystroke? All I want to do is make it slightly easier to vote for people who probably like the idea of just reading the arguments, deciding with support or oppose, typing their name for the decision, and not being required to write anything else. {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::As I've stated before, I agree that you can never extract the true intent behind a "per proposer/per all" vote as it stands, and that it does not inherently alleviate assumptions of bad-faith and bandwagoning. Where I disagree is that blank votes would be somehow better. They'd be worse; until they're integrated in a sub-voting system under someone's vote as an expression of support, they'd afford no clue over which user's idea you'd even be rallying behind. Here, Pseudo makes a clear reference in <s>his</s> her vote to Cam's, Technetium's, and Axii's reasonings, as Nintendo101 does with yours, so someone engaging with a proposal's discussion can have some idea of which talking points are more prevalent and worth stressing or combatting. Votes shouldn't just tie back to the proposal itself, they should also inform and be informed by other votes. Had the aforementioned users opted for blank votes instead, that principle is lost, and... well, we ''know'' these users have only demonstrated good faith so far, but for the sake of the argument, a blank vote in this case would not particularly help someone's presumption that they voted out of sympathy/out of spite/out of whatever subjective. What's to lose from a modicum of articulateness, other than a trivial amount of text memory? "Per" votes offer a small, but significant advantage over the alternative.<br>I strongly opine that assuming good faith in users by default has a limit somewhere--not towards established and contributive users, but towards new users who are less versed with the rules, who may be inclined to vote out of personal preference and where some suspicion from others would only be natural. Blank votes, and a change of rule that I assume they would entail, would only encourage such a practice. It's less about the compulsive liars, which you hypothesized above, and more about the candid newbies. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:12, January 17, 2025 (EST), edited 16:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)
:::I see. However we can't force people to add more to their votes, just as how it's not feasible to force ALL voters to write in unique opinions the comment sections. They simply have nothing else to add beyond indicating they decided which side best reflected their stance. If they want to reference a particular user to reinforce that point, I trust them that they will. If they really want to veil spite or bad intent that factored in their vote, they're not going to communicate it, even if it's required to write out a reason. People already likely do this. It doesn't really happen, or if it does, it's already in a multitude of other votes that actually have reasons. I'm not sure if there is a realistic scenario where multiple people conspire to undermine the process against a disliked user, but even in the case that happens, I don't think requiring a reason for a vote will stop them. {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::Perhaps we could allow blank votes only as an alternative to "per proposer in particular". If you attribute a strict meaning to these votes, you diminish their ambiguity whilst encouraging users to actually state who they align with in the discussion if it's someone other than the proposer. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:45, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::That would still have the problem of requiring that you already know how the rule works beforehand to understand the votes, and I feel like it would probably not be very intuitive for new users. It makes more sense to me to just keep it so that reading the vote clearly tells you its reasoning. (That said, I could see the argument for allowing the initial support vote by the proposer to be blank, since they just explicitly outlined their reasoning in the proposal itself.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::I am a she, not a he, and I would strongly recommend against using "he" as a default. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 15:33, January 18, 2025 (EST)
::::What I initially invoked as an example was [[Special:Diff/4599038|Hooded Pitohui rethinking his stance on the proposal after MCD gave their reasoning]], but I realized he fully retracted his vote afterwards, so I switched to an example that made sense within my point. Technically I was not using "he" as a default, given that I know [https://www.marioboards.com/threads/43855/#post-2272458 how he identifies himself] <small>(marioboards.com)</small>--I simply forgot to change the pronoun at almost 2 AM (CET). I was tired. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)


====Comments====
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
There's an issue in that many models in earlier 3D games do not have an easily decipherable rigging or animation system. For instance, on The Models Resource, the Luigi's Mansion model uploads lack proper pose data, so they're just automatically T-posed. I do think non T-posed ones should be ''prioritized'', but prohibiting them fully is not the way to go because that's sometimes the only clear option. '''EDIT:''' Never mind, I didn't see the "infobox" part of the proposal. I mistook this for a blanket ban. My apologies. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:53, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.
:Screenshots of the subjects in the game are strongly preferred regardless. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:58, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
::I agree with Ray Trace. If one did not have an organic looking model, couldn't one just use a screenshot? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 22:01, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
:::That's still assuming you either have an emulator available or can find a high enough quality video at the proper dimensions. In several cases, the preview image on The Models Resource is the most available option (such as for the ''Mario Party'' games on N64). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:04, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
::::There is no shame in taking a screenshot of a YouTube let's play. Not ideal, but I think it is more serviceable than a t-posed model. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 22:08, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Well I mean that's still assuming you can find one at all. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:09, August 25, 2024 (EDT)<br>
::::::Editors should take all their screenshots with emulation regardless. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 23:27, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::With how rabid Nintendo can be about ROMs and such, that's sometimes easier said than done. (Plus plenty games have outright never been dumped or officially ported, particularly the more obscure ones; there's a reason there's no maps or screenshots for "''Champions' Course''" in ''[[Golf: Japan Course]]''.) That also assumes one's device has the ability to actually run said emulators or the space for them; even with high-dollar gaming laptops I've had trouble with more advanced game system emulation in that regard. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:49, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::With the right tools and resources, ROMs aren't difficult to find at all. And, by the way, those are rare cases and have little to do with the proposal which deals with models. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:59, August 26, 2024 (EDT)


===Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games===
If this proposal passes, '''only''' the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.
This has been bouncing around in my head ever since the so-called "gigaleak" happened. This would do exactly as the header says: sprites and models and such that do not appear in gameplay of the finalized game they represent would be moved to a separate gallery, similar to what we do with non-game artwork relative to game artwork. This would allow more easy coverage on them without bloating the "main" gallery with them, particularly in cases where the subject ''does'' appear in the final game with different sprites (or with different colors), and would also help encourage more unused sprites to be uploaded in the first place. The other gallery section would be placed underneath the main one.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
This proposal falls directly in line with [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."
'''Deadline''': September 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{user|DrippingYellow}} Nothing wrong I can see with this. Per proposal, and Doc in the comments.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally ''any other platform that has ever existed'' gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
#{{user|Ahemtoday}} Seems like a straightforwardly good idea to me.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|Axii}} Per proposal
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick in the comments (and per proposal as well).
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User|Arend}} Per all
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove ''any'' conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per comments.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} - Opposing because this was done with the gigaleak in mind. The gigaleak consists of unlawfully stolen assets, and one could propose to remove those instead, out of courtesy towards Nintendo.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>


====Comments====
====Comments====
@SMRPG They haven't gone after TCRF so far despite them documenting everything from it. I get there's some "fruit of the poisoned tree" moral concern, but as it is, our role is to document known facts. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:02, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Nintendo101}} Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:In addition, the current wording of the proposal implies a section for ''all'' unused/prototype/pre-release content, not just those that came from the gigaleak (e.g. various prototype/prerelease things from ''Mario Kart DS'' came from the kiosk demo, which was distributed to toy stores and game stores by Nintendo themselves). If SMRPG was concerned that hypothetically, those assets would have to be removed as well for Nintendo's concern (in a "one bad apple spoils the bunch" kind of way), then ''not'' separating them at all might actually be ''worse'', because hypothetically speaking, Nintendo might request to remove ''the entire gallery'' purely because assets from the gigaleak were being included; this of course helps no one. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:52, August 27, 2024 (EDT)
:I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
::Indeed, I think it would be a good idea even without the gigaleak occurring, though the fact that the hyper-litigious Nintendo hasn't gone after anyone as far as I can tell (most notably TCRF, who documents that sort of thing as the entire purpose of their existence) for reposting them, it doesn't seem to bother them. And while it makes sense for The Spriters Resource to have a blanket ban on what was uncovered there (they're based on assets that actually do appear and are only barely able to keep the site up monetarily), it makes little sense for us to resort solely to using descriptions and offsite links. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:14, August 27, 2024 (EDT)
::{{@|Nintendo101}} The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, '''not''' others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::Being a TCRF user myself, I agree with Doc von Schmeltwick. -- {{User:FanOfRosalina2007/sig}} 16:10, August 27, 2024 (EDT)
:::Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::Right indeed. I personally think the whole fearmongering aspect of SMRPG's oppose vote is generally... well, not quite in ''bad'' faith, but at the very least somewhat misleading or misunderstanding of the situation. As you said, Nintendo hasn't been witchhunting sites like TCRF for detailing things from the gigaleak even four years after the fact, so we should be safe (and again, these sections would include prototypes that weren't part of the gigaleak, too). Though I simply don't think that oppose vote makes a lot of sense even if Nintendo ''did'' send their ninjas to anyone detailing the gigaleak, so we might as well make separate sections for any unused/prototype content regardless. {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:54, August 27, 2024 (EDT)
::::I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::::My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a '''lot'''. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you ''are'' allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, ''you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings''. So why is it so much more locked-down here? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::"''I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?''"
::It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from ''removing'' it if they should so choose. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is ''still there'', even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
I want to make something clear: under [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What can I have on my user talk page?|the current policy for user talk pages]], "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Super Mario RPG}} receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
:No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I believe users should have ''some'' fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Shadow2}} What are some specific examples? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Examples of what? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they ''don't'' want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
{{@|Technetium}} That's true, no one does, but me and some others still would prefer a precedent to be set. This proposal began because someone blanked a friend request from own talk page recently, so this may occur every once in a while. The reason that one was allowed to be removed (by {{@|Mario}}) is because it was a single comment from long ago that had no constructive merit when applied to this year and wasn't that important to keep when the user decided to remove it. This proposal would allow it in all cases. Removing such messages from one's own talk page is the equivalent of declining friend requests on social platforms. It stops the message from lingering and saves having to do a talk page disclaimer that friend requests will be ignored, since some people may choose to accept certain friend requests but not others. This opens room for choices. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
{{@|Mario}} So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed?  [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do ''not'' fall under "unimportant fluff". [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::{{@|Shadow2}} have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they ''don't'' want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)
 
=== Allow co-authorship of proposals ===
{{early notice|January 24}}
The passing of this proposal would allow duel authorship of proposals (including talk page proposals), where both authors shape the same proposal, the written text, and have equal responsibility for its implementation. It would not allow more than two authors on any proposal for reasons I will explain below.
 
[[File:Princess Peach and Princess Daisy - Mario Party 7.png|right|200px|buds]]
I have sometimes come up with changes I thought would be nice for the site and have wanted to make proposals for, but stopped myself because the sheer scope of seeing them implemented have kept me from doing it. While maintaining and editing a wiki is a communal craft, passed proposals - regardless of whether they require simply changing the name of an article or creating hundreds of new ones based on the splitting of a list article - are often largely the burden of the person who proposed it. These can be very big time commitments and ultimately feel monotonous and - even when one supports the ideas behind a proposal and do not regret passing it - the weighing monotony can lead to poor editing decisions with rolling it out. It can also lead to big proposals with lots of support not being realized for a long time, sometimes multiple years, as a cursory view of the [[#Unimplemented proposals|unimplemented proposals]] list would seem to support. Additionally, as prefaced, it can lead to some good ideas not being proposed because the idea of carrying out the changes is discouraging. I don't think that's a good thing.
 
I wish there was more collaborative involvement in larger proposals, maybe with aide from the supporters, instead of the expectation being almost entirely on the person who passed it. I think it further fosters collaboration and passive comradery among the userbase, encourage users who largely only participate in proposals to get involved with revising articles directly, and come with a more equitable expenditure of time and effort on larger projects. The aims of this specific proposal will not enable all of those things, but I think it will be a step in the right direction for greater collaboration among users and ease the burden of seeing large proposals realized by a single individual person. Sometimes a good idea comes up in passive conversation anyways, and there are sometimes users one appreciates that they would like the opportunity to work with more directly on a shared project (or at least that is the case for me). Direct collaboration can result in stronger proposals as well, as both authors could spot one another's blind spots and oversights.
 
I originally thought having more than two authors on a proposal would be fine, but I think it would be undemocratic and awful if - say - someone raised a proposal with ten "authors" who all immediately voted to support. I view that as manufactured consent, and would make it difficult to oppose even if the ideas behind it are poor. I think having two authors should be sufficient. If this proposal passes, users would be permitted to ask one another{{footnote|main|*}} if they would like to create a proposal together and shape the ideas behind it, to which the other user can accept or decline as they so choose. If accepted, they would write something together, or at least mutually support the written text before it is published, and if there is a supplemental article draft used for the proposal, they would both have to be supportive of how that is laid out and written as well. No user can be attached to a proposal unless they were legitimately involved in its creation and support the published text. If neither is the case, they are to alert [[MarioWiki:Administrators|site staff]] who will issue a [[MarioWiki:Warning policy#Level two offenses|warning]] to the offender and the proposal is to be cancelled. If the alleged offender has proof to the contrary, they are to present it to staff. (I only clarify these details not to intimidate anyone or make them uneasy, but to layout what I think are sufficient guardrails.)
 
{{footnote|note|*|At baseline level, I think reaching out should be permitted on the user talk pages of the wiki, but I also think it would be fine to reach out to a fellow user on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord Server. In my view, this just facilitates ease of communication and allow options. <u>'''If anyone has concerns about collaborations occurring on these other two platforms, please raise them below.'''</u>}}
 
I offer two options:
#'''Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!''': This would amend the rules above on the proposal page, give space for two users to be cited in the "list of ongoing proposals" and "archiver" list, add nonconsensual attribution as a level two offense, and allow two users to co-author proposals (including talk page proposals).
#'''Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.'''
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 31st, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As someone whose proposals have been hit or miss, the ability to co-author proposals will increase the likelihood of them passing. This will resolve an issue where the proposer may not necessarily see the flaws of what they are proposing.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this makes sense!
#{{User|Technetium}} Hell yeah!
#{{User|Sparks}} Friendship Is Magic!
#{{User|Tails777}} Teamwork makes the dream work! Per proposal!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} <s>wow the plural system is a fan of co-operation???</s> Per proposal, we're a little surprised there hasn't been a formal system for co-authored proposals before honestly, given a few proposals in particular have already happened precisely because of talk page discussions. Though, in fairness, those talks usually involve a lot more than 2 people, and only one of them mediates the proposal itself. Still, hey, if multiple users want to work on the same proposal, why not, right?
#{{User|Mario}} I never thought it was disallowed, but sure. I do think this was practiced before, but not necessarily full-on co-authorship, such as this proposal[https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44#Redesign_RPG_infoboxes_and_bestiaries] by Walkazo that cited me (Bazooka Mario) and Megadardery and others who helped make this proposal. In archival process, it might help to make a list of users similar to a citation that lists multiple authors (such as Mario, M.; Mario, L.; Toad, T; Koopa, B.).
#{{User|Pseudo}} This seems quite healthy for the wiki!
#{{User|BMfan08}} The law firm of Dewey, Lykit and Howe will be pleased to hear this. Per all.
 
====Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.====
 
====Comments on co-authorship proposal====
Our only real question is, what do we do for archiving these co-authored proposals? We might need to update the author parameter to account for the possibility of a second author. If that was addressed, we'd support this in a heartbeat. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:I specify above that space would need to be allocated for two users to be cited rather than just one when applicable in the archives and other comparable lists. I do not offhand know the the technical steps needed for this to occur, but I assume it is not technically difficult. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:pick a character that can't be part of a username and make the template detect that as a divider in the username field {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 19:06, January 18, 2025 (EST)
 
===Merge the Tortes===
Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:
* [[Apprentice (Torte)]]
* [[Chef Torte]]
* [[Torte]]
 
The argument is fairly simple; the Chef and Apprentice Tortes are just a duo never seen separate from one another, like the [[Jellyfish Sisters]], or [[Cork and Cask]]--and given they are the ''only'' Tortes we see in the game, it seems only fair to merge that article as well. This is only particularly unique in the amount of articles there are; 3 of them, for this one concept? The Torte article focuses mostly on their in-battle role, while the Chef Torte and Apprentice articles try to explain their duo role in two distinct articles.
 
In addition, if we merge Apprentice (Torte), either to Torte or to Chef Torte, we should probably move [[Apprentice (Snifit)]] over to [[Apprentice]], and give it the <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> template.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of ''Superstar Saga''.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
#{{User|Sparks}} Merge!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
 
====Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least ''have'' unique names, unlike say, Birdo.
 
====Do nothing (It's gourmet!)====
 
====Comments (It's... Alive???)====
This can easily be ''four'' birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki>. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)
:Good observation, actually! Went and added this. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)
 
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 02:39, January 20, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, January 20th, 09:07 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  9. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  12. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  13. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  16. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  17. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can simply say "Per proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games, Nintendo101 (ended December 25, 2024)
Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork, Scrooge200 (ended January 5, 2025)
Establish a consistent table format for the "Recipes" section on Paper Mario item pages, Technetium (ended January 8, 2025)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style

The passing of this proposal would include the in-game missions and equivalencies (i.e. episodes from Super Mario Sunshine, objectives from Super Mario Odyssey, etc.) to the subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.

In reference material aimed at describing and chronicling creative works, putting quotation marks around certain types of subjects has become a well-established practice. This is acknowledged in our Manual of Style, in which it states that video games, TV series, and albums should be italicized, whereas individual music titles, named book chapters, and TV episodes should be within quotation marks. I am personally not a fan of adhering to traditions or standards just for the sake of it, but there are strong utilitarian reasons why this has become commonplace. Last year, I relayed what these were in a proposal that aimed to remove quotation marks from song titles, stating:

The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a greater whole (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in The Color of Water. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of Resident Alien. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "Gusty Garden Galaxy" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and Gusty Garden Galaxy is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.

I hope this adequately explains why I think this is a good practice for us as editors, and how this benefits visitors to our site.

I would like us to explicitly include missions as subjects we should put quotation marks around. This is something I do already on the wiki because I have always perceived them as scenarios within a creative work, much like a TV episode or named chapter in a novel. They often even have unique narrative elements. Consequently, presenting them between quotation marks comes with the same benefit to readers. Proper levels (which I conceptualize as locations within the creative works we cover, not scenarios) have been given a diversity of different names through the franchise's history and many of them sound like they could be referring to scenarios. For folks browsing the wiki or reading an article covering a recurring subject, wouldn't it be nice to have some passive indication that Here Come the Hoppos is a level, whereas "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario within a level? I think that'd provide helpful clarity.

As an example of what this would look like in practice, I recommend the Super Mario Galaxy article, where I embraced this fully. I don't include quotation marks around missions in the level table because I feel that looks a little busy and they aren't as helpful there, but I always include them when I mention a mission within a sentence, just like I do with chapters and song titles. The only reason why I am making this proposal is because I have seen the quotation marks removed from mission names on other articles I have worked on, and I would rather we keep them. I think it is a good idea.

For clarification, this proposal does not impact the names of actual levels, which I consider to be locations within the creative works we cover, regardless of how silly their names are in English. It is not commonplace to put quotation marks around the names of locations in creative works, and it would also defeat the intent behind this proposal. What would be the point of including quotation marks around "Big Bob-omb on the Summit" if you are also including them around "Bob-omb Battlefield?" That would just be redundant and clarify nothing to our readers.

I offer two options:

  1. Add missions (and equivalencies like episodes and objectives) to list of subjects we should put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.
  2. Don't do that.

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: I like this idea! Let's include missions on the Manual of Style.

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Our thought process for this is, admittedly, a tad silly, but hear us out here; if we give episodes of TV shows, like, say, "Mama Luigi", quotation marks in places like the list of episodes, to even the infobox of its own article, we can see a reason to go for this. While we don't feel as strong about this as others, we do feel like it at least makes SOME sense to us to apply this rationale to what is, effectively, the gameplay analogue to an "episode".
  4. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per proposal and per Nintendo101's comments below regarding the relative youth of videogames as a medium. While, as with all conventions, it pays to re-examine them every now and again, these formatting conventions have stood the test of time because they are useful. They quickly and easily signify published creative works and subsections thereof. Standards and conventions for writing about videogames have not had the same time to mature as those for older media like television and literature, but in order for them to mature, someone, somewhere must be willing to engage in a dialogue about those conventions, and decide which conventions used for other media are worth preserving - are useful in some way - to discussing videogames. All of that said, I find this convention useful to discussing these sub-narratives and objectives which occur in larger levels. I do understand the concerns surrounding the murky lines between a "level" and a "mission", but based on the wiki's current definition of a "mission," this applies only to the 3D Mario platformers, where that distinction is relatively strong. The exception is Super Mario Odyssey, regarding which I think Nintendo101 has already addressed sufficiently in the comments.
  5. Fun With Despair (talk) Per proposal. In my opinion, this only serves to bring further clarity to the title of a mission within the level vs. the level itself. With the established notion of a mission being inherent to 3D Mario as a sub-category within levels themselves, I don't see this causing any confusion whatsoever.
  6. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal. I do see that there are some tricky gray areas to this mentioned by the opposition, but I do think it's fair to consider Mario 64 style missions the equivalent of something like a chapter or TV episode — they were even called episodes in Sunshine, after all!
  7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per proposal and per Hooded Pitohui especially. Having an established separator between a location and the "scenario" within said location is not just a nice little feature but can even bring clarity with active or new readers of the Wiki. I see this causing quite the opposite of confusion.

Oppose: I think this is a bad idea. Let's not do that.

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) I maintain my stance from the aforementioned proposal — these quotation marks are misrepresentative of these subjects' official names, and the insistent use of them makes it impossible to tell the errant times they are official from the times in which they are not. This is prioritizing a manual of style over the truth, which is unacceptable no matter how minor.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Ahemtoday, and I also think the argument for using the quotation marks for missions in particular is especially weak because I don't think you can argue it's a common practice elsewhere like you can with music. It doesn't help to clarify anything for the reader if they don't already know it's a standard.
  3. Salmancer (talk) Putting quotes exclusively around mission names would be saying that a mission has more narrative content than a level, as both are equally discrete segments of video games. (Start at one point, goal at other point, stuff in between, game enters a state with lessened consequences in-between, be that a transition to the next level/mission or a World Map/hubworld.) And sure, missions have more narrative content on average than levels. But that's an average and is far from absolute, mostly being decided by "are there NPCs in this mission/level who are relevant to the story"? Levels can have those, like Bowser Jr. Showdown, and missions can lack those, like with Smart Bombing. It would be best for Super Mario Wiki to not pass judgement.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) ignoring the fact that the line between what counts as a "mission" and what doesn't by the given definition is murky (do bogstandard Power Moon names count, if SM64 stars do? what about Brothership side quests? TTYD troubles? achievements?), i think the way this proposal tries to apply a standard used for episodes in a show and songs in an album to only a particular stripe of objectives within a videogame is drawing a false equivalence. deciding that levels are strictly separate "locations" while missions are "scenarios" also feels like an improper conflation of game-mechanical and narrative terminology (what about levels that share locations with others, like Master of Disguise's first and second levels?). this feels like a misapplied idea.
  5. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all.
  6. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

#Jdtendo (talk) Per all: it's unneeded, it does not make much sense to put mission names in quotation marks but not level names, it's not always clear what qualifies as a mission or not, and this would not be helpful to most readers because they would not be aware of this convention.

Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal

@Ahemtoday I believe your proposal did not pass because the arguments were not persuasive. There are very few expectations for users and visitors of this site other than that they have baseline writing and reading comprehension skills. I am not privy to anyone, certainly not a systemic amount of people, who have seen quotation marks around the name of a subject and assume it is literally part of the name. I do not think it is a reasonable argument. I do not even know of any music tracks in the franchise with quotation marks around them as part of their name outside of the four items from Paper Mario: The Origami King - in a nearly forty year-old franchise with hundreds of music tracks. The inclusion of quotation marks for these four subjects is clearly the exception, not the rule, and a useful writing convention should not be thrown out just for them. It takes very little effort to just share in the body paragraphs of those four articles that the quotation marks are part of their names (if one even thinks it is necessary, which I am still unconvinced is). We are not misinforming readers here.

Additionally, bringing up that music track is a non sequitur because this proposal does not impact music: it impacts missions. If you feel like quotation marks around any subject, regardless of medium (i.e. televised episodes, song titles, titled novel chapters, and potentially missions, if this proposal were to be successful) is inherently "lying," as you assert in your previous proposal, it is dependent on the idea that your average reader sees quotation marks and assume they are part of the title unless otherwise specified, which you have not unsubstantiated. I don't think that happens. That is like seeing the title Super Mario Galaxy on the wiki and feeling misinformed because every letter on the title screen is capitalized. - Nintendo101 (talk) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)

The point is that the speech marks sometimes are part of the name and putting them around all names regardless of that removes that distinction. It wouldn't be immediately obvious to a reader that they are part of the title of "Deep, Deep Vibes" but are not part of the title of "Happy & Sappy". Similar cases are ""Hurry Up!" Ground BGM" and ""It's-a Me, Mario!"", where I think the double quotation marks look bad. A solution I'd be fine with is to only use the quotation marks in running text and not tables, which seems to already be done on many album pages (though I'm still opposed to using quotation marks at all for mission names since I don't think it's an established standard). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:48, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Why is it more immediately important to relay that quotation marks are part of a subject's title over the fact that it is a song as opposed to something else? — Nintendo101 (talk) 04:57, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Because the goal of saying the title is simply to say the title, not to also clarify immediately what kind of thing it is. That's what context is for, not titles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Then why do we italicize game titles? - Nintendo101 (talk) 09:39, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Because it's an established standard (and one Nintendo sometimes adheres to), unlike putting quotes around mission names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:26, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Very few novels put quotation marks around their own chapter titles. Independent reference material on those novels always do. Do you think we would not italicize video game titles if Nintendo themselves did not? - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:02, January 8, 2025 (EST)
What reference material puts quotation marks around video game mission titles that were not present in the game? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:11, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I would have personally appreciated it if you had engaged with the question I asked, or at least engage with whether you think it is accurate to say an episode in Super Mario Sunshine is essentially one of its "chapters." That was the point I was trying to make.
I am hardly familiar with any independent sources that discuss missions at all, let along put quotation marks around their names when they show up in a sentence, and I hope it is apparent from the articles I contribute to the most that I do exercise that diligence. (There may be sources that chronicle RPG titles like Final Fantasy where certain scenarios or chapters in the games have quotation marks around them, iirc, but platformers are typically not discussed with the same rigor because most of them have weaker narrative elements.) When compared to literature, film, and music, video games are a younger medium that is still not chronicled or discussed with the same care in academic or archival projects, which is where precedents for this type of thing would be set. They are still viewed as products first and creative works second in many circles. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, the people who want granular information on the Super Mario series are likely to come to the Super Mario Wiki before anywhere else, and I do not see that changing in the near or distant future. We would very much be the ones establishing this precedent. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I think the reason we italicise game titles is because of it being a standard in other sources, which putting quotes around mission names is not, regardless of the reason for that. I don't see why it should be our job to set this precedent. Following established practice is very different to inventing it. And I don't agree that missions are equivalent to chapters because I feel like missions in Mario games are often more equivalent to levels in other Mario games, which I certainly do not want us to be putting quotes around. Like Salmancer argued in their vote, the idea that missions have more narrative content than levels is not always accurate (and I don't see why narrative content should be a decider anyway in a franchise that is not primarily focused on narrative). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:33, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I do not want to set it because it is "our job." I want to set it because I think it is a beneficial tool. It is also not some sort of value judgement like Salmancer suggested. It is acknowledging that the Bob-omb Battlefield and "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" are not equivalencies within the game they occur in: the former is a level, whereas the latter is a scenario within the level. They are not the same thing. Bowser Jr. Showdown, regardless of how it was localized in English, is the name of a unique level. A location. It is within a greater region (a world), but that is exactly like World 1-1 or Vanilla Secret 2. When you access "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," you are accessing the same level as "Big Bob-omb on the Summit," so it is not the equivalency to something like Bowser Jr. Showdown and is exactly why I made the disclaimer I did in the proposal about level names. The lack of quotation marks does not mean Bowser Jr. Showdown is devoid of any narrative context, just that it is a level only. If there were different discrete scenarios like missions within Bowser Jr. Showdown that had names, that would be another matter. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:14, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I don't see how it being a "scenario" (which is already a pretty loose distinction imo) should mean it gets quotation marks if that isn't a standard. In the same way levels and missions aren't equivalent subjects, nor are levels and worlds, or levels and items, or levels and characters. Deciding that this particular distinction can't just be gleaned from context like all those others can and instead needs us to invent an extra indicator feels arbitrary to me. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:27, January 8, 2025 (EST)
It is not that readers, necessarily, will believe that the quotation marks are actually present around things they are not. It is that, if the reader had any desire to see if quotation marks surrounded something, they could not get this information from us except from marginal implicities that are basically by accident. By contrast, whether or not a name is a location or a mission is extremely easy information to obtain on this wiki without quotation marks — readers can simply click on the link and find out at the very top of that subject's article what it is. I've never spoken to a person who's run into the issue of confusing episode and level names, but even if they weren't equally unsubstantiated, why should we obfuscate information to cater to them when they are five seconds away from solving their problem? Ahemtoday (talk) 21:55, January 8, 2025 (EST)

@Hewer I think you have misunderstood the proposal. I did not argue this was common practice or had precedent. My argument is that quotation marks often convey the type of subject and that it is part of a greater whole. Missions are narrative scenarios within a larger creative work, just like episodes in a television show, scenes in a film (which also get placed within quotation marks when titled), and named book chapters. I think that is intuitive. They are ontologically all the same thing in different media and — like them — they inherit the same benefits from quotation marks. They passively relay the same info: that this is a scenario within a creative work as opposed to, say, a location within a creative work. — Nintendo101 (talk) 04:54, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I understand you weren't arguing that this had precedent, my point is that that was an argument for the opposition in the music proposal that I don't think can be applied here, thus I think the case for quotes around missions is weaker than that for quotes around music. Quotation marks only help to indicate what type of subject it is if the reader is already aware that that is what they are meant to indicate, which they aren't as likely to be for mission titles due to it not being a common practice (and again, it doesn't match how the games themselves do it, so I think it would probably add more confusion, not reduce it). The quotation marks around "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" don't indicate it being a mission any more than it being a song. I also personally don't think the distinction between levels and missions, especially in Mario games, is that significant. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
The intent is to clarify that "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario in a place, whereas Bob-omb Battlefield is the place. I have found this very helpful in the articles I have contributed to. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I argue "death of the author". People will read this as "we're putting quotation marks around missions and not levels because missions are more like television episodes than levels are". This will happen because levels in 2D Super Mario games and missions in 3D Super Mario games are more or less equivalent; the concept of "place" vs "event in place" is wibbly-wobbly in video game land unless the option of replaying them with the same save file is cut off, and this proposal is putting one set of "events in places" over the other. I read the entire proposal and came to that exact conclusion. And to the theoretical confusion of "3D platformer level" to "mission", what of "2D platformer world" to "level"? What makes declaring Footrace with Koopa the Quick to be a part of Bob-omb Battlefield but not of the same type as Bob-omb Battlefield any more important than declaring Bowser Jr. Showdown is part of Meringue Clouds but not of the same type as Meringue Clouds? This has to be done for both kinds of relationships. This, of course, is relevant because Worlds in New Super Mario Bros. games started to include interactive elements that work based on how they do in the levels, and I think this proposal is targeted at prose for such interactive elements in their articles, like explaining where and when things appear. Sure, this makes something like Cosmic block's first sentence in it's Super Mario Galaxy section marginally clearer if someone has already read the Manual of Style, but why shouldn't Spine Coasters get this treatment when they appear in Thrilling Spine Coaster and in Rock-Candy Mines? Salmancer (talk) 23:19, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I don't think "death of the author" applies here because the distinction of mission vs. level is informed by the game itself, not by what the creators of the game say it should be.
The reason why Bob-omb Battlefield isn't the equivalent of a world is because the first floor in Super Mario 64 is the world, and this is part of how the game is physically organized. You only gain access to another floor if you clear the first Bowser course of the first floor. The only games with missions that don't have worlds for their levels are Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Odyssey. The other three do: Super Mario 64 has its levels broken up into floors; Super Mario Galaxy has domes; and Super Mario Galaxy 2 has what are literally called Worlds. So if the the equivalency of the Terrace in New Super Mario Bros. U is Acorn Plains, and the equivalency of Good Egg Galaxy is Acorn Plains Way, than what is the equivalency of "A Snack of Cosmic Proportions?" The answer is there is none, because Acorn Plains Way doesn't have any episodes. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:07, January 9, 2025 (EST)
I should have leaned less on the joke. When I said "death of the author" I meant "your intention not being that missions have more narrative content than levels does not negate my interpretation of this rule in the manual of style existing because missions have {arbitrary quality} that levels do not". ({arbitrary quality} can be replaced with anything, "narrative content" is just my pick for the most obvious given the comparison to television in the proposal.) People who don't edit wikis usually do not read the manual of style, and there has to be a non-zero number of editors who don't read it either. This rule, if implemented and without someone also reading the explanation listed here, says what I interpreted it to say. Super Mario Wiki makes decisions both for contributors and for readers, and this interpetation is a negative for both groups if they do not read the Manual of Style to obtain the intended interpretation. While reading the Manual of Style is an expectation for contributors (and honestly I do not mind if people skip the manual of style and just figure things out from context), that is not expected for readers.
And to point 2... This policy meant to apply to exactly five video games only functions in a reasonable sense for three of them. That is far too much "sanding off the corner cases because it's convenient" than this wiki should have. (If you subscribe to the reasoning Nintendo displayed once in an image that Odyssey is actually the sequel to Sunshine and the Galaxy games float off with 3D Land and 3D World, then the ratios of "makes sense/doesn't make sense" are 2/2 for the Galaxy/3D Whatever group with missions and 1/3 for the wide open sandboxes with missions. That's worse.) Salmancer (talk) 22:18, January 9, 2025 (EST)
I'm sorry, I don't think I really understand what you are talking about. The criteria for missions is not arbitrary - they are well defined in the games they occur in, which is why we have an article for them. It is an immaterial scenario within a level. The reason why one would put quotation marks around mission and not something like a Spine Coaster is because the latter is a material, physical structure. Same with characters, items, objects, enemies, worlds, levels, etc. Mario can touch Bob-omb Battlefield - he cannot touch "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," only experience it. This is frankly a level of clarification I did not really expect. Traditionally, in creative works, regardless of medium of what that work is, named scenarios - the subset experiences within which the events of the creative work occur - are what you put quotation marks around in reference material about that work. That's it. That's very common practice, and it is a helpful tool for the reasons I outline above. To me, that is exactly what missions are in the 3D Mario games - named scenarios. The missions in Super Mario Sunshine are even referred to as episodes - which is what you would quotation marks around in reference material about television series. It is completely inline with what one would do for a novel with named chapters, an album, a film with named scenes, or even the named paragraphs of a delivered speech. The point isn't that people at large would know the quotation marks mean it is a mission - it is that they would understand "oh, there is something discretely different between 'Footrace with Koopa the Quick' and Bob-omb Battlefield" just by passively reading the text. Because if they were equivalencies, they would not be formatted differently in the reference material. That remains the case. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:09, January 9, 2025 (EST)
My point was to say in the same way Cosmic Block would be clarified by going, "Cosmic blocks first appear in 'Pull Star Path' of Space Junk Galaxy", Spine Coaster merits equal clarification by going, "Spine Coasters appear in 'Thrilling Spine Coaster' of Rock-Candy Mines", not that we should be putting quotes around Spine Coaster. (I'm really bad at wording these things).
Regardless, I still flatly think this is wrong. Yes, missions are immaterial, levels are material... but there's a catch to "missions are immaterial" that I should have remembered a few indents earlier. The specific mission selected from a menu changes the map that a level uses. And the exact state of the map of the level when a mission is selected is treated on this wiki as part of the mission: according to this edit summary and this edit summary the enemy list for a mission should only account for enemies in the version of the level loaded when that mission is selected and are able to be encountered while collecting the mission's Power Star, not just every enemy that can be encountered while still collecting the mission's Power Star. Missions on this wiki consist of both an immaterial scenario and the very material version of the level loaded when selecting the mission. Footrace with Koopa the Quick means both the scenario where you can race Koopa the Quick to get a Power Star and the version of Bob-Omb Battlefield that contains Koopa the Quick, a Bob-omb Buddy to unlock the cannons, an extra iron ball, and neither Big Bob-omb nor a Koopa Shell. (This explanation on Bob-omb Battlefield brought to you from Ukikipedia!) This ties back into my earlier Odyssey joke: this concept doesn't necessarily apply there because in removing the ability to replay missions and having state changes for finishing final objectives, things more logically come together as "the world is changing because I'm moving through the story" and not as "the world is in a specific state because I picked this Star from the menu". Which is why I'm swearing up and down that I knew this and somehow forgot to mention it. (I should also note I'm not overthinking game mechanics, Big Bob-omb actively acknowledges this is how things work because he says he shows up again if the player selects Big Bob-omb on the Summit's Star from the menu.) With this the layout of the level being a component of a mission, a mission looks a lot like a level of a 2D Super Mario game.
For completion's sake, I should also mention that Dire, Dire Docks throws a spanner in my case. The state of Bowser's Sub is based on completion of Bowser in the Fire Sea and not on the selection of any mission. Which would mean that maps aren't entirely dependent on mission selection, only extremely close to completely dependent on mission selection. Ukikipedia doesn't count Bowser's Sub's state as a course version, if that matters. (Tick Tock Clock presumably doesn't mess with this: the clock speeds presumably are just changing the behavior of all the platforms and not four versions of Tick Tock Clock.) Salmancer (talk) 09:14, January 11, 2025 (EST)

@EvieMaybe, I restricted this proposal to what I am familiar with, which are the 3D Super Mario platformers. I do not have the knowledge or expertise to extend this proposal to Wario: Master of Disguise or Mario & Luigi: Brothership. I am only interested in Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Super Mario Odyssey. I do not offhand think isolated Power Moons should be impacted by this proposal. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:13, January 9, 2025 (EST)

By the nature of being a writing guideline, this proposal inherently extends to those games, and every other game within this wiki's scope. I've taken a hardline stance against this convention, but I would rather it be applied consistently everywhere than be inconsistently enforced and/or explicitly arbitrarily limited in scope. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:47, January 9, 2025 (EST)
What? No. It would apply only to the subjects on the mission page, but they do not have a single name. Please do not say things that are not true or assume bad faith. It is discourteous to your fellow user. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:36, January 9, 2025 (EST)
Apologies. I'd overlooked that "mission" was a strictly defined term on this wiki in that way, and I didn't mean to speak in a way that was assuming bad faith. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:26, January 9, 2025 (EST)

On a second thought, I don't think that this proposal would cause actual harm, so I'm removing my vote. Jdtendo(T|C) 03:32, January 11, 2025 (EST)

New features

Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page

This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more Super Mario games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for Mario, Bowser, and many other recurring subjects.

Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.

For example, let's say for Luigi in his appearance in Mario Sports Superstars, there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:

For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see here.

The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
  3. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  4. Fun With Despair (talk) This is a good idea, and all it does is make it easier for readers to find information that's otherwise scattered across various pages. It's a centralizing effort that I think could be fairly helpful.

Oppose

  1. Mario (talk) Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) I worry this would make history sections messy and repetitive when the focus should be on the written text.
  3. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Lefty and N101.
  4. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Hewer I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)

If I understood this correctly, would this proposal add a disclaimer to every sigle game in a character's History section if the character has a corresponding profile and/or statistics section for that game? That's basically 20+ disclaimers on almost every game in Luigi's History page, is that correct? — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 09:41, January 1, 2025 (EST)

I don't really see the problem if it's helpful, relevant links that aren't very intrusive anyway. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)

@Mario: I don't think the gallery comparison works. Galleries aren't split up into subsections for individual games in the same way as profiles and statistics pages, so it can't really be done the same way. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:16, January 3, 2025 (EST)

How much are you envisioning this is going to be used? Is it just going to be for linking to character stats or is it for any game that has a section on the profiles and statistics page? If it's just stats, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed (that information used to be in history sections anyway before profiles and statistics sections were created and later split off from their pages), but I don't think something like this warrants a template directing readers off the page. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 13:34, January 17, 2025 (EST)

When I voted this, I was envisioning just stats pages with significant information such as stats or other notable traits a character might have inherent to a specific game. If it's a link for EVERY category, I would honestly swap to oppose. --Fun With Despair (talk) 18:31, January 18, 2025 (EST)
This is a good point, I also support only doing this for stats. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)

Make categories for families

I've made a similar proposal a while back, but it didn't work out, so now I'm asking less: make categories for Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong and Toad's families. These are the only characters I know that have a family big enough to make it to a category. I mean, categories are made to... categorize things, and I actually think this would be a good thing. Oh, and Stanley the Bugman is Mario's cousin「¹」 (unrelated, but meh).

Proposer: Weegie baby (talk)
Deadline: January 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Hewer (talk) Per my vote last time, I don't see the harm in this.
  2. Weegie baby (talk) Per me.

Oppose

Comments

@Weegie baby You can put in a support vote if you want to. Even the proposer gets to vote! link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 16:31, January 16, 2025 (EST)

Yeah, I forgot, thanks. Weegie baby (talk) 08:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Each of these new categories should have at least five entries; see MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope. I'm not sure Donkey Kong, Toad, or Peach meets the minimum number of entries. Would the Koopalings still count as Bowser's family?--Platform (talk) 23:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Donkey Kong certainly has enough, though there might be a bit of overlap with Category:Kongs. Peach and Toad probably have enough if you count implied characters (which can be included in the categories as redirects). More examples were mentioned in the previous proposal's comments. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:23, January 18, 2025 (EST)
Here are 5 people in each family:
Peach’s family: Princess Peach; Princess Daisy; Mushroom King; Gramma Toadstool; Obā-chan; etc.
Bowser’ family: Koopalings (even more than 5); etc.
Donkey Kong’s family: Donkey Kong; Donkey Kong Jr.; Cranky Kong; Wrinkly Kong; Uncle Julius; etc.
Toad’s family: Toad; Mushroom Marauder; Jake the Crusher Fungus; Gramps; Toadette (Toad’s sister sometimes); etc (in this case, Moldy and Toad’s cousin).
I actually thought there should be an article for Dixie’s family, but there are only 4 known members (unless we count Baby Kong), so her family should be in the category for Donkey Kong’s. Weegie baby (talk) 15:25, January 18, 2025 (EST)
It's not about number of people but entries. Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus is a single entry. It really looks like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Daisy and Toadette because of single throwaway lines in the Prima guides? Implied characters? Baby versions? As MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope says: "a minimum of five entries (including any subcategories' entries), however they should have many more than that, since small lists can simply be placed on an article that's central to the subject at hand (for example, the six Aquatic Attackers are listed on that very page, which they all link back to)." Mario and Luigi's family got their own category because there were so many entries. They have their own page because putting it all on Mario's page is cumbersome. Right now, Toad and Peach's families can fit into single paragraphs in their respective articles. Donkey Kong's only has Cranky due to his ambiguous identity. I can get behind Bowser since his family has its own template, even if there are lots of retconned and implied characters in it.--Platform (talk) 20:26, January 18, 2025 (EST)

Removals

Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects

The existence of these was brought to our attention thanks to a redirect called Mario Party 13 (as of proposal, this leads to Super Mario Party Jamboree, which is already marked for deletion. This concerns both that redirect, as well as MP11, MP12, and MP13.

Simply put, these redirects seem to be entirely based on rather uncommon fan nicknames for Super Mario Party, Mario Party Superstars, and Super Mario Party Jamboree. We can't find any sources that call these games Mario Parties 11, 12, or 13. Random flavor text notes that Super Mario Party is "the 11th party", but that's as close as you get. And unlike, say, our similarly deprecated "God Slayer Bowser" redirect, we don't even think there's any particular confusion that those are the respective names of the games. Given the unofficial origins of these nicknames, as well as the fact they seem to not even be that used, we don't see any harm in getting rid of these.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: January 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Delete (party's over!)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Fairly self-explanatory; unofficial title? That's a paddlin'. Unofficial title that doesn't even seem to be that widely used? That's a paddlin'.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Does anyone actually call those games Mario Party 11, 12 or 13? Per proposal.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.
  4. Sparks (talk) What if games with these actual titles released? Per all.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all.
  6. Drago (talk) Per all.
  7. Arend (talk) The fact that a user tagged the MP13 redirects for deletion with the reason of "Jamboree would be 12, since Superstars seems to be in the same vein as Top 100" and re-redirected the MP12 ones from Superstars to Jamboree, already tells me that there doesn't seem to be a general agreement whether Mario Party 12 would be Superstars or Jamboree anyway.
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  9. Mushroom Head (talk) Honestly, I’m already on edge on Mario Parties 6-10 because of the non-mainline Mario Parties, but unlike those 5 games, the three concerned don’t even use those as their own game, not to mention Jamboree is basically a sequel to Super Mario Party.

Delete MP12/MP13, keep MP11 (...except you, you stay.)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; we personally feel like a clean sweep makes the most sense, but we understand the merit of keeping MP11 given that at least Super Mario Party has a piece of dialogue calling it the 11th party.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per my comment and the proposal that added the Mario Party 11 redirect.
  3. Arend (talk) Secondary choice; I guess it makes sense to still call Super Mario Party the 11th one, and my vote for deleting them all stems from the confusion whether Superstars or Jamboree is the 12th one, a discussion from which Super is exempt.
  4. Mushroom Head (talk) Secondary option. I’m sure there is like 6% of users who would search ‘MP11’, but Jamboree is basically SMP2 anyways, and whether MPS or Jamboree is MP12 is so confusing we might as well delete MP12 and 13.

Keep (party on!)

#Hewer (talk) Per my comment and this proposal.

Comments (idle party chat)

I do think fan nicknames can be allowed as redirects, so I'd vote to keep Mario Party 11 (because of the "eleventh party" mention in the game) but delete the other two (because then it starts getting ambiguous as to what counts). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:45, January 9, 2025 (EST)

This is up for debate, because there's redirects for Mario Kart 1 through Mario Kart 6, so if these are to be affected, then they'd need to go too, but I see no reason to remove those as they may come in handy if someone wants to search for the 5th Mario Kart for example. Simply ask "what's the eleventh Mario Party?" and there it is. Another proposal with tons of grey area unaccounted for it seems. - YoYo Yoshi Head (light blue) from Mario Kart: Super Circuit (Talk) 13:28, January 12, 2025 (EST)

I'm not fond of "MK6"-style redirects, but at least there's no confusion about the 6th Mario Kart game was and you can be pretty sure that there will never be a game titled Mario Kart 6. However, you wouldn't create a "MK9" redirect to Mario Kart Tour, would you? It is debatable whether this game would count as the 9th Mario Kart, and Nintendo could still release a game titled Mario Kart 9 in the future. I admit that it is less likely that Nintendo would release an actual Mario Party 11, but it could still happen – they did release New Super Mario Bros. 2 when there was already a second NSMB after all. As for people who would know what is the 11th Mario Party released on a home console (which is not the 11th Mario Party game overall if you include the handheld games), they will probably want to find the 12th as well, which, since there's no consensus on what Mario Party 12 should even be (Superstars or Jamboree?), would probably only lead to frustration no matter what we choose "MP12" to redirect to. Frankly, unless Nintendo suddenly announces a game titled Mario Party 14 which would retroactively confirm that the current Switch games are MP11, MP12 and MP13, I would rather not keep these redirects. Jdtendo(T|C) 06:07, January 13, 2025 (EST)
This is why I'm in support of only keeping the Mario Party 11 redirect, as Birdo states in dialogue in the game that it's the "eleventh party", so it's not ambiguous whether it counts. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:04, January 13, 2025 (EST)
Question! Would it be too late to add a "keep MP11, delete MP12/MP13" option to this proposal? Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:08, January 13, 2025 (EST)
You can add options within the first four days of a proposal's creation, so yes, I think today is the last day you can add an option. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:15, January 13, 2025 (EST)
Nintendo is probably not going to release Mario Party 14 (too lazy to do italics), because they’ll probably make Super Mario Party Superstars Jamboree or Super Mario Party Jamboree 2 or whatever. MHA Super Mushroom:) at 07:25, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Mario Party 12 leads to SMPJ... MHA Super Mushroom:) at 08:50, January 18, 2025 (EST)

Changes

Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"

There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?

Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.

This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.

Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Blank support

  1. Mario (talk) Per all.
  2. Ray Trace (talk) Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
  3. PopitTart (talk) (This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)
  4. Altendo (talk) (Look at the code for my reasoning)
  5. FanOfYoshi (talk)
  6. OmegaRuby (talk) While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really are just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at all. (Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)
  7. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
  8. TheDarkStar (talk) - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
  9. Ninja Squid (talk) Per proposal.
  10. Tails777 (talk) It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.
  11. RetroNintendo2008 (talk)
  12. Fun With Despair (talk) I am arguably in agreement with some of the opposition who argue that even "per all" should go in favor of each voter making an argument or explaining themselves, but if "per all" stays, then I don't really have a problem with allowing blank votes as well. I would prefer a proposal on getting rid of "per all" overall as its a bit of a lazy cop-out (at least name a specific guy you agree with), but a blank vote ultimate just means they agree with the OP's point and chose to vote with them - and I don't have a problem with that.
  13. Shoey (talk) Per all. The idea that you can't infer what a blank vote means is absolute pedantic nonsense. The idea that per all has this grand meaning or that if we allow blank votes people could abuse voting is ridiculous. News flash if people wanna abuse votes they can just put per all. Do you people hear yourselves? The idea that a blank vote can lead to an anarchy of votes nobody can understand or will lead to this great rush of bad faith votes but the 7 characters that spell out per all will protect us from the anarchy is a goddamn preposterous argument.
  14. MCD (talk) - If we allow per all votes then there's no reason not to allow a blank vote that clearly infers the same thing. If someone makes a blank vote and you don't understand why then you can always ask them to expand in the comments. Outside of that the only real argument against this is personal preference which shouldn't dictate whether we allow this or not.
  15. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all/proposal votes are already rarely, if ever, scrutinized. Allowing blank votes won't change that, and I don't think most voters necessarily put as much thought into them as some of the opposition seems to think. I know I've cast per all votes in proposals where I agree with the premise but my thoughts don't align 100% with everyone who has voted already. You can just as easily cast a bad faith vote disguised under per all as you could a blank vote anyway, but we really shouldn't be assuming anyone is participating in proposals in bad faith without a good reason. (Also, having to write "per proposal" on your own proposal is silly.)
  16. Nintendo101 (talk) per Shoey. per Mario's comments below. I found them contextualizing. I don't think this really the big deal folks think it would be - we should assume good faith of fellow users regardless. And if this doesn't workout as expected, there is nothing preventing folks from trying to overturn this in a couple months if they so choose.

Blank Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
  2. Technetium (talk) I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone does provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type two words.
  5. Jdtendo (talk) Per all (is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)
  6. Axii (talk) Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
  7. Pseudo (talk) Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
  8. Mister Wu (talk) Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
  9. DesaMatt (talk) Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.
  10. Blinker (talk) Per Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii and Mister Wu.
  11. Killer Moth (talk) Per Camwoodstock, Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii, and Mister Wu
  12. Scrooge200 (talk) A blank vote would be hard to interpret, and you should at least give some reasoning rather than none at all. A "per all" sends the message that the voter has read the proposal and all its votes and is siding with them. For more heated proposals, a blank vote is basically arbitrary because it doesn't tell you anything about why they chose the side they did.
  13. Koopa con Carne (talk) per opposition. "Per [someone]" implies that you took the time to peruse someone's arguments, is an explicit and articulate enough way to show support for those, and it's typically only around a dozen characters long including the space. A blank vote is ambiguous--it could be what I just described, or it can be a vessel for drive-by voting, bandwagoning, or even a simple bias towards the fictional thing so discussed. Sure, the weight of your vote would the same regardless, but if I'm not able to tell which user's case you express your support for, be it the proposer themself or one of the voters, I can just as easily infer that you're not engaging with the proposal in good faith. Give your vote a meaning.
  14. Mushroom Head (talk) 2 things: Putting a blank vote doesn’t automatically mean you agree with previous voters. It may mean you’re voting because you like voting, or you may have accidentally saved changes before typing a reason. And… It’s not really a big deal to type 6 letters, 1 blank and 1 full stop. If you are too lazy to type 1 a, 1 e, 2 l, 1 p, 1 r, 1 blank, and 1 full stop, it implies you are too lazy to vote properly.
  15. Hewer (talk) I see the arguments for both sides but I'm slightly leaning towards this one. Even if blank votes are supposed to be interpreted as "per all" votes, that wouldn't be obvious to anyone unfamiliar with this policy, and it shouldn't be that big a deal to have to write two three-letter words to clarify the reasoning for a vote.
  16. JanMisali (talk) Per all. The reason you're expected to provide an explanation with your vote is to drive discussion and to help people interpret the final result of the proposal. "Why did this proposal succeed?" "Why did this proposal fail?" While "per all" isn't the most useful reasoning to provide, at least it's something. I understand the concept of treating blank votes as equivalent to "per all", but there's no guarantee that future wiki editors would understand it.
  17. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick, Technetium, Camwoodstock, Ahemtoday, Jdtendo, Axii, Pseudo, Mister Wu, DesaMatt, Blinker, Killer Moth, Scrooge200, Koopa con Carne, Mushroom Head, Hewer, and JanMisali. No one needs to type all that out, though, when all you need to do is say "per all" to indicate that you have interacted with and understand the proposal on at least a basic level.
  18. LinkTheLefty (talk) per all (this may be the only time I've typed this without putting a silly spin on it, I've got nothing else to add that hasn't already been said)

#Hooded Pitohui (talk) I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides some insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.

Blank Comments

I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)

I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
@Mario I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)
In my opinion, saying "per OP" or "per (insert user here) is just as much effort as saying "per all" and at least demonstrates a modicum of original thought. I think that a blank vote is essentially the same as just voicing that you agree with the OP, so I did vote for that option in this case - but I think per all does an equally poor job to a blank vote at explaining what you think. At least requiring specific users to be hit with the "per" when voting would give far more of a baseline than "per all". That's not really what this proposal is about though, so I won't dwell on it. --Fun With Despair (talk) 00:22, January 2, 2025 (EST)

Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)

Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. Technetium (talk) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring a written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. Salmancer (talk) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)

@Fun With Despair And a blank oppose vote would mean what, exactly? At least with "per" votes, it's obvious that there must first be someone to agree with, in this case, the other opposers. A blank oppose vote on the other hand is little better than a vote just saying "No". Which, imo, also should not be allowed. Blinker (talk) 09:27, January 9, 2025 (EST)

@Blinker If you can't pick at least one user to specifically reference in a "Per _____", then I don't think the vote has much merit to begin with. "Per All" is just as much a "No" vote as a blank would be. It's lazy and barely tells anything about your opinion whatsoever or even if you bothered to read the other votes. If we are allowing them at all, a blank and a Per All should be equivalent. I would prefer we ban both, but oh well.--Fun With Despair (talk) 22:55, January 9, 2025 (EST)
I disagree. A "per all" vote tells you that the voter agrees with all the previous votes, and sees the reasoning given by them as good justification for voting the same way. I don't see how that's less valid than only agreeing with a specific user. Of course, if someone is writing only "per all" just because it's an easy way to not have to give an actual reason, that isn't right, but that doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with "per all" votes. Blinker (talk) 11:55, January 11, 2025 (EST)
This is a bit of an extreme-case scenario here, but imagine a proposal which is a landslide failure, only 1 support from the author and 20 opposes. Consider how the creator of that proposal would feel in the scenario where the opposition is 1 proper vote and 19 "per" votes, versus an opposition of 20 votes that are all completely blank. How would they handle the former? The latter?
To take it a bit more extreme, say you were tasked to make a follow-up proposal. How exactly would you go about it in the former case? Could you do the same thing in the latter case? Does the question even make sense at all in the latter case?
In no uncertain terms: how exactly should one be expected to set up a proper proposal if they're only met with silent disapproval? Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 03:35, January 17, 2025 (EST)
What the hell are you talking about? What's the difference between 20 per all votes against you or 20 blank votes against you? An ass kicking is an ass kicking. I'd feel the exact same way either way "wow people really hated my idea." Again the idea that there's this huge difference between 20 people saying per Shoey and 20 people not saying that, especially if the rules say that blank votes should be considered the equivalent of a per all or a proposal. What is a person supposed to do in any scenario where they lose in a landslide? They accept that there idea is unpopular and move on (or they throw a huge fit and get told to fuck off) Shoey (talk)
This is about wiki maintenance, not social dynamics you'd find in middle school. If you're going to have a landslide loss, the least everyone in the room could be bothered to do is at least say why. Because otherwise, well, as far as the proposal creator is concerned, any blank vote could be telling them to fuck off. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal passing wouldn't even allow this scenario to happen. The point is to classify all blank votes as "per all", and if you have 20 blank votes with not actual reasoning, then none of them would actually count because there's no reasoning for them to per by. The first vote would have to have a reason, and in that case both situations you've come up with here are exactly the same. Shy Guy on WheelsSGoW sig.png(T|C|S) 11:12, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I don't understand the majority of the oppositions. The idea that blank votes could encourage drive by voting or bandwagon voting like what are talking about? Do you think people can't bandwagon vote with a per all or a per proposal? There's already nothing stopping somebody from voting and then never checking the proposal again in the current system. If people wanna make bad faith votes they already can! They just say per all, or per proposal, or per so and so. There's no eliminating least of all with some arbitrary per proposal requirements. Shoey (talk)

That's assuming bad faith in written "per" votes. I already said that a blank vote can be equated to anything, constructive or frivolous, it ultimately depends on how you personally imagine it to be. It can have the exact same exact rhetoric value as fandom-driven voting, as in "I vote to make a page for X game/character because it is my favorite game/character!" and you wouldn't be able to tell. Unless you ask that user for clarification, at which point you might as well cut the middleman and enforce users to state something in their vote like currently. An explicit "per" is not only more on-point, but takes only a few keyboard presses to type out. I'd be more open to a proposal that seeks to allow blank votes as an express "I agree with the proposer in particular but not necessarily the voters", because as it stands, a blank vote can be worth jack-all. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 08:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
The problem is that a blank vote, even if we say it equals "per", there is no way to tell if that's how someone is actually using it unless they're otherwise asked; and if they get asked, well, they'll more likely than not just say "oh yeah, it was totally a per all!". And when you open the gates to "using a blank vote as anything"... well, you open the proverbial floodgates. Does the person have something thoughtful to say that they just don't feel like they can phrase correctly? Does the person feel like everything else has been said, an actual per vote? Do they think "YOU SHOULD EAT A BOWL OF NAILS AS RECOMPENSE FOR YOUR FOOLISHNESS AND YOU MUST WALLOW IN THE MISERY AND HUMILIATION YOU DESERVE AND OR GO AWAY FROM THE LIFE OF THE WIKI FOREVER PLEASE" and hold nothing but contempt for the fact you would put something up to proposal, if not more than that? Or do they just. Literally not care. And they didn't even read the proposal for 2 seconds before picking the option that sounded kinda neat. And if you asked them, they would say "wait, that is what we're voting on?" What are they actually thinking? All you see is literally no text at all. For all you know, it could be all of the above, or none of those at all. If you ask them to clarify, and they don't, what exactly do you do in that case? What's different from their blank vote aside from the fact they were questioned for it? It's utter nonsense.
tl;dr; even if we say "a blank is per all", a blank vote tells you absolutely nothing about what the voter actually thinks, up to and including that you can't actually tell if they're using it properly as a per vote. And in trying to fix that issue, well, there's a solution we can think of to fairly easily denote when a vote is a per vote; it's just 3 key presses, a space bar press, 3 more key presses, and the period key. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 12:28, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Read from here:





Do you know what I mean if this was my vote? MHA Super Mushroom:) at 07:37, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Yes, depending on whether the vote is placed in "Support" or "Oppose", I would know that your opinion is that you either agree with my proposal or you don't. I don't really see the problem with this personally. All that matters is whether you agree or disagree. As it stands, someone could vote against a proposal by just saying "No.", which is just as productive if not less.--Fun With Despair (talk) 10:56, January 17, 2025 (EST)
That's only your read of a blank vote. A blank vote can also just mean that the user agrees or disagrees with the proposal out of sheer sympathy for the fictional thing described in the proposal, for example. It doesn't just matter if you agree or disagree, because that can be purely subjective towards the subject at hand. If a "per" vote is already difficult to derive intent from, then a blank vote provides even fewer clues, with no way of knowing until the user clarifies their choice somehow. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
If somebody wants to place a vote on a proposal because they're I dunno, in love with Luigi and doesn't want his article changed and not anything actually expressed in the proposal, they can already just write "per all" or even make a fake BS argument as it is. Writing "per all" has absolutely never discouraged anyone. Every single argument made regarding disingenuous voting can be applied to "Per all" or "Per proposal" or even just writing "No, just no." with no argument as I have literally seen people do with valid votes that get counted.--Fun With Despair (talk) 13:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
We, respectfully, disagree with the notion that you can apply the same concerns with disingenuous votes to "per all"s, because the fundamental point of saying "per all" is to literally say, "per all the other voters." There is a fairly rigid definition for what "per all" means. It's the definition for the word "per", and the definition for the word "all". How do you define silence? Even if we say "blank means per all", how exactly do you plan to police that? How can you tell what they actually meant when you're given absolutely nothing to go off of? If someone places a "per all" vote, sure, it's hard to tell what their overall thoughts are, but there is at least something there to go off of--there is something that can be said about it. What does this give you?: Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:41, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Respectfully, have you never heard of a liar? Anyone who would be abusing blank votes to push their agenda is likely already just lying and writing "per all" when in actuality they just don't like the proposer or some of the people voting against the proposal and don't want that side to win. If you GENUINELY believe that writing "per all" is some monumental feat of brave honesty that verified the voter's integrity beyond the shadow of a doubt, then I have a bridge or twenty to sell you. --Fun With Despair (talk) 14:03, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Okay, genuine question here; what do you think we're thinking if we choose to respond like this:
Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Well cam considering the fact that this proposal specifically pertains to blank votes being treated the same as per all votes. I'd say your blank comment is a fake bullshit straw argument trying to equate a blank comment to a blank vote. Shoey (talk)
I don't think anything because unlike a vote with two defined options (a big fat AGREE or DISAGREE) that indicates the opinion of a voter, your post is lacking that context. It is a strawman using a completely different scenario. --Fun With Despair (talk) 15:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
The answer was that we were thinking "this entire ordeal is just begging for someone to misinterpret someone else that blows up in some stupid TikTok fandom drama-tier nonsense where nobody says anything of value and/or actively refuses to listen to what is said, a situation that we firmly do not want to be a part of, yet we're worried we're already careening towards it already if we're having people gladly chime in with 'i have a bridge to sell you's or 'or they just throw a fit and get told to fuck off's"... And then we got up because we had to run a few errands and get a drink, so we pre-wrote this before that. If you want to doubt this, be our guest, but we have a picture of this in our Notepad++, pre-written and all, with a timestamp from our computer clock--not a screenshot, as that would be easily edited, unlike a photograph of an LCD.
...So, like, see what we mean? You can't gleam anything from total silence. Is it just a silent agreement with the consensus? Is it apathy? Is it an irrational meltdown? (As of writing this, we cannot blame you if that's what you assumed if you didn't see us in the Discord, being fairly casual... Sorry. We really wanted to commit to this stupid point, and we promise we won't do it again.) Is it some secret test of character? Unless someone tells you and they can back it up, you don't know.
Our ultimate point, we guess, is that you gain a bare minimum something from a "per all", but nothing is... well, nothing. And while it is extremely, and at this point, extraordinarily petty of us, we would rather have that bare minimum something, than nothing at all. Which, admittedly... is kinda just what we said in our own vote almost a month ago, huh. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
I feel that if a known liar and bad faith poster that is inexplicably not banned and voting in proposals tries to justify a bad faith position with a bad vote... vote against them.... If I'm inputting my vote with simply #{{User|Mario}} after a series of 5 votes making a case against a proposal, or me being the second support in a proposal that has already outlined its points, what motives are you expecting from me (I assume you trust me to make fair and respectful judgement)? Can you assume good faith? Why can't you extend this courtesy to most other users? Is it really necessary I type something out beyond this? Should I be forced to end my votes in periods? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Somehow one of my most contentious proposals I've ever made - Mario (talk) 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Can I just ask why it is that the primary concern of this proposal's discussion so far has been the concern of "bad-faith voting"? Is there any kind of basis in recent events to justify this kind of concern over "drive-bys"? I don't really have a strong opinion either direction, but I'm not sure why we're so nervous about the potential of blank votes suddenly being moves towards people like, completely overrunning the proposals page or something? Feels like a slippery slope argument to me. Roserade (talk) 13:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I'm not sure why the concern relies solely on bad-faith assumption of people casting votes. We're not supposed to be assuming bad faith or ulterior motives from blank votes. I can't understand how "per proposal" or "per all" alleviate those. People also say "just write it out anyway" but this is like forcing people to end their votes in full sentences with a full period. It's only one more keystroke? All I want to do is make it slightly easier to vote for people who probably like the idea of just reading the arguments, deciding with support or oppose, typing their name for the decision, and not being required to write anything else. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
As I've stated before, I agree that you can never extract the true intent behind a "per proposer/per all" vote as it stands, and that it does not inherently alleviate assumptions of bad-faith and bandwagoning. Where I disagree is that blank votes would be somehow better. They'd be worse; until they're integrated in a sub-voting system under someone's vote as an expression of support, they'd afford no clue over which user's idea you'd even be rallying behind. Here, Pseudo makes a clear reference in his her vote to Cam's, Technetium's, and Axii's reasonings, as Nintendo101 does with yours, so someone engaging with a proposal's discussion can have some idea of which talking points are more prevalent and worth stressing or combatting. Votes shouldn't just tie back to the proposal itself, they should also inform and be informed by other votes. Had the aforementioned users opted for blank votes instead, that principle is lost, and... well, we know these users have only demonstrated good faith so far, but for the sake of the argument, a blank vote in this case would not particularly help someone's presumption that they voted out of sympathy/out of spite/out of whatever subjective. What's to lose from a modicum of articulateness, other than a trivial amount of text memory? "Per" votes offer a small, but significant advantage over the alternative.
I strongly opine that assuming good faith in users by default has a limit somewhere--not towards established and contributive users, but towards new users who are less versed with the rules, who may be inclined to vote out of personal preference and where some suspicion from others would only be natural. Blank votes, and a change of rule that I assume they would entail, would only encourage such a practice. It's less about the compulsive liars, which you hypothesized above, and more about the candid newbies. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:12, January 17, 2025 (EST), edited 16:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)
I see. However we can't force people to add more to their votes, just as how it's not feasible to force ALL voters to write in unique opinions the comment sections. They simply have nothing else to add beyond indicating they decided which side best reflected their stance. If they want to reference a particular user to reinforce that point, I trust them that they will. If they really want to veil spite or bad intent that factored in their vote, they're not going to communicate it, even if it's required to write out a reason. People already likely do this. It doesn't really happen, or if it does, it's already in a multitude of other votes that actually have reasons. I'm not sure if there is a realistic scenario where multiple people conspire to undermine the process against a disliked user, but even in the case that happens, I don't think requiring a reason for a vote will stop them. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Perhaps we could allow blank votes only as an alternative to "per proposer in particular". If you attribute a strict meaning to these votes, you diminish their ambiguity whilst encouraging users to actually state who they align with in the discussion if it's someone other than the proposer. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:45, January 17, 2025 (EST)
That would still have the problem of requiring that you already know how the rule works beforehand to understand the votes, and I feel like it would probably not be very intuitive for new users. It makes more sense to me to just keep it so that reading the vote clearly tells you its reasoning. (That said, I could see the argument for allowing the initial support vote by the proposer to be blank, since they just explicitly outlined their reasoning in the proposal itself.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)
I am a she, not a he, and I would strongly recommend against using "he" as a default. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 15:33, January 18, 2025 (EST)
What I initially invoked as an example was Hooded Pitohui rethinking his stance on the proposal after MCD gave their reasoning, but I realized he fully retracted his vote afterwards, so I switched to an example that made sense within my point. Technically I was not using "he" as a default, given that I know how he identifies himself (marioboards.com)--I simply forgot to change the pronoun at almost 2 AM (CET). I was tired. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the Super Mario franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what happened here. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, like here, and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.

If this proposal passes, only the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.

This proposal falls directly in line with MarioWiki:Courtesy, which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
  2. Shadow2 (talk) Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally any other platform that has ever existed gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
  3. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per Shadow2's comment.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) per WT
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove any conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
  7. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal and Waluigi Time. No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.

Oppose

  1. Ray Trace (talk) This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
  3. Sparks (talk) Friend requests are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
  5. Technetium (talk) No one even does friend requests nowadays.
  6. Mario (talk) Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it must be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
  7. Tails777 (talk) I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
  8. Mushroom Head (talk) It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
  9. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
  10. Arend (talk) On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
  11. MCD (talk) This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you really don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
  12. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Nintendo101 (talk) It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.

Comments

@Nintendo101 Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)

I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — Nintendo101 (talk) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
@Nintendo101 The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, not others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. Technetium (talk) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Technetium (talk) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)

Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you are allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings. So why is it so much more locked-down here? Shadow2 (talk) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
"I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?"
It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from removing it if they should so choose. Shadow2 (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is still there, even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." Shadow2 (talk) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I want to make something clear: under the current policy for user talk pages, "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? Jdtendo(T|C) 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)

No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Super Mario RPG receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." Shadow2 (talk) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I believe users should have some fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Shadow2 What are some specific examples? Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Examples of what? Shadow2 (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they don't want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. Shadow2 (talk) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)

@Technetium That's true, no one does, but me and some others still would prefer a precedent to be set. This proposal began because someone blanked a friend request from own talk page recently, so this may occur every once in a while. The reason that one was allowed to be removed (by @Mario) is because it was a single comment from long ago that had no constructive merit when applied to this year and wasn't that important to keep when the user decided to remove it. This proposal would allow it in all cases. Removing such messages from one's own talk page is the equivalent of declining friend requests on social platforms. It stops the message from lingering and saves having to do a talk page disclaimer that friend requests will be ignored, since some people may choose to accept certain friend requests but not others. This opens room for choices. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)

@Mario So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed? Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)

Toadlose.gif Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do not fall under "unimportant fluff". Shadow2 (talk) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Shadow2 have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they don't want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. Shadow2 (talk) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? Shadow2 (talk) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Shadow2 (talk) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)

This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ MHA Super Mushroom:) at 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Allow co-authorship of proposals

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 24 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

The passing of this proposal would allow duel authorship of proposals (including talk page proposals), where both authors shape the same proposal, the written text, and have equal responsibility for its implementation. It would not allow more than two authors on any proposal for reasons I will explain below.

buds

I have sometimes come up with changes I thought would be nice for the site and have wanted to make proposals for, but stopped myself because the sheer scope of seeing them implemented have kept me from doing it. While maintaining and editing a wiki is a communal craft, passed proposals - regardless of whether they require simply changing the name of an article or creating hundreds of new ones based on the splitting of a list article - are often largely the burden of the person who proposed it. These can be very big time commitments and ultimately feel monotonous and - even when one supports the ideas behind a proposal and do not regret passing it - the weighing monotony can lead to poor editing decisions with rolling it out. It can also lead to big proposals with lots of support not being realized for a long time, sometimes multiple years, as a cursory view of the unimplemented proposals list would seem to support. Additionally, as prefaced, it can lead to some good ideas not being proposed because the idea of carrying out the changes is discouraging. I don't think that's a good thing.

I wish there was more collaborative involvement in larger proposals, maybe with aide from the supporters, instead of the expectation being almost entirely on the person who passed it. I think it further fosters collaboration and passive comradery among the userbase, encourage users who largely only participate in proposals to get involved with revising articles directly, and come with a more equitable expenditure of time and effort on larger projects. The aims of this specific proposal will not enable all of those things, but I think it will be a step in the right direction for greater collaboration among users and ease the burden of seeing large proposals realized by a single individual person. Sometimes a good idea comes up in passive conversation anyways, and there are sometimes users one appreciates that they would like the opportunity to work with more directly on a shared project (or at least that is the case for me). Direct collaboration can result in stronger proposals as well, as both authors could spot one another's blind spots and oversights.

I originally thought having more than two authors on a proposal would be fine, but I think it would be undemocratic and awful if - say - someone raised a proposal with ten "authors" who all immediately voted to support. I view that as manufactured consent, and would make it difficult to oppose even if the ideas behind it are poor. I think having two authors should be sufficient. If this proposal passes, users would be permitted to ask one another* if they would like to create a proposal together and shape the ideas behind it, to which the other user can accept or decline as they so choose. If accepted, they would write something together, or at least mutually support the written text before it is published, and if there is a supplemental article draft used for the proposal, they would both have to be supportive of how that is laid out and written as well. No user can be attached to a proposal unless they were legitimately involved in its creation and support the published text. If neither is the case, they are to alert site staff who will issue a warning to the offender and the proposal is to be cancelled. If the alleged offender has proof to the contrary, they are to present it to staff. (I only clarify these details not to intimidate anyone or make them uneasy, but to layout what I think are sufficient guardrails.)

* - At baseline level, I think reaching out should be permitted on the user talk pages of the wiki, but I also think it would be fine to reach out to a fellow user on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord Server. In my view, this just facilitates ease of communication and allow options. If anyone has concerns about collaborations occurring on these other two platforms, please raise them below.

I offer two options:

  1. Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!: This would amend the rules above on the proposal page, give space for two users to be cited in the "list of ongoing proposals" and "archiver" list, add nonconsensual attribution as a level two offense, and allow two users to co-author proposals (including talk page proposals).
  2. Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: January 31st, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) As someone whose proposals have been hit or miss, the ability to co-author proposals will increase the likelihood of them passing. This will resolve an issue where the proposer may not necessarily see the flaws of what they are proposing.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) this makes sense!
  4. Technetium (talk) Hell yeah!
  5. Sparks (talk) Friendship Is Magic!
  6. Tails777 (talk) Teamwork makes the dream work! Per proposal!
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) wow the plural system is a fan of co-operation??? Per proposal, we're a little surprised there hasn't been a formal system for co-authored proposals before honestly, given a few proposals in particular have already happened precisely because of talk page discussions. Though, in fairness, those talks usually involve a lot more than 2 people, and only one of them mediates the proposal itself. Still, hey, if multiple users want to work on the same proposal, why not, right?
  8. Mario (talk) I never thought it was disallowed, but sure. I do think this was practiced before, but not necessarily full-on co-authorship, such as this proposal[1] by Walkazo that cited me (Bazooka Mario) and Megadardery and others who helped make this proposal. In archival process, it might help to make a list of users similar to a citation that lists multiple authors (such as Mario, M.; Mario, L.; Toad, T; Koopa, B.).
  9. Pseudo (talk) This seems quite healthy for the wiki!
  10. BMfan08 (talk) The law firm of Dewey, Lykit and Howe will be pleased to hear this. Per all.

Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.

Comments on co-authorship proposal

Our only real question is, what do we do for archiving these co-authored proposals? We might need to update the author parameter to account for the possibility of a second author. If that was addressed, we'd support this in a heartbeat. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I specify above that space would need to be allocated for two users to be cited rather than just one when applicable in the archives and other comparable lists. I do not offhand know the the technical steps needed for this to occur, but I assume it is not technically difficult. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
pick a character that can't be part of a username and make the template detect that as a divider in the username field — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 19:06, January 18, 2025 (EST)

Merge the Tortes

Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:

The argument is fairly simple; the Chef and Apprentice Tortes are just a duo never seen separate from one another, like the Jellyfish Sisters, or Cork and Cask--and given they are the only Tortes we see in the game, it seems only fair to merge that article as well. This is only particularly unique in the amount of articles there are; 3 of them, for this one concept? The Torte article focuses mostly on their in-battle role, while the Chef Torte and Apprentice articles try to explain their duo role in two distinct articles.

In addition, if we merge Apprentice (Torte), either to Torte or to Chef Torte, we should probably move Apprentice (Snifit) over to Apprentice, and give it the {{about}} template.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of Superstar Saga.
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
  3. Sparks (talk) Merge!
  4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.

Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least have unique names, unlike say, Birdo.

Do nothing (It's gourmet!)

Comments (It's... Alive???)

This can easily be four birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an {{about}}. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)

Good observation, actually! Went and added this. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4623724"